689
McConnell’s freezes complicate Republican attacks on Biden’s age
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
689 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4592 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No one over 70, period. Go home. Retire. Make way.
Keep in mind that includes Bernie Sanders.
And that would be okay.
It's so weird how everyone expects progressives to be just as hypocritical as moderates and conservatives...
Bernie would 100% be down for it and immediately pivot to outreach or something else if he could hold office.
He's been saying he's not more important than the movement for decades now
I'm by no means obsessed with the guy, but one thing really solidified my respect for him: before I ever knew who he was he always would show up in a random documentary if US government was ever spoken about, and he was always on the "right side" of whatever the documentary was about. Then in the run up to 2016 he shows up and I'm like "holy crap it's that guy!"
Bernie is an ineffectual, failure of a career politician who can't get anything done, not even rally the support of his own party, let alone the whole country. He's a dinosaur who has been too long in politics and lives a few rungs above us all on the ladder and has no idea how we really live.
We need someone young and capable to rally behind, forget Bernie.
Literally what Bernie has been saying for 20 years champ, glad you agree with him
Yet HE ran for president and failed. If Bernie wants young blood, why the fuck was he running?
What he said...
Raising awareness for the progressive cause, and motivating the youth to participate in politics. Not just voting in the general, but voting in the primary and running for office.
You've got really strong opinions about him, but don't seem to know anything about him.
It really seems like the two of you agree on a lot. You're just really uninformed...
It is a failure of our system that a populist candidate without his name recognition would have no chance against the incredibly well-funded corporate shill neoliberals/conservatives we usually have to choose between.
Who, pray tell, should have run in his place on his platform?
About a hundred of his amendments made it in various bill proposal. A bunch of which became laws. You can't really blame him for the broken party system in which he's not even taking part. One man can't single handly fix congress
If he can't fix the broken system then he's useless to us
Gee, I had no idea that it was his responsibility alone to run this government.
The u.s has a sickness. You guys are such sycophants for your politicians. It's like watching a sports team fandom, but for politics.
Answer him you coward
There is no answer to cult fandom. The u.s is two cults, one more conservative than the other and when you call out a democrat they immediately go tribal and call you a right winger, without thinking that to me you're the one who is way too fucking conservative.
You guys will blame each other for everything the government does, while saying "it's not my guys fault, he's only president he has no power!" With a straight face. You guys are fucked, utterly fucked if you've gone tribal and thrown up Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as your examples of what politics should be.
I'm not American so I don't have a horse in the race beyond how much your country's sick politics infect mine. You guys are all gross. Stop defending billionaires and politicians.
But you didn’t call anyone out. You made an ignorant statement, and then deflected when you were confronted.
The irony of going on a "both sides" rant because you were called on your bullshit on an independent senator out of all things. One of the few 2 or 3 senator that isn't part of this tribal cult you're going on about. You really sound like an ignorant stupid person tbh.
Maybe you’d should read a book on political movements.
While I agree he didn't do much from a legislative point of view, calling him a failure is missing the fact that he represented a voice that's rarely heard in American politics, which might have paved the way people like AOC or Fetterman. Also the fact that he still holds the same views after 30 years is something that can serve as an antidote to cynicism. He's an inspiring figure to many, and inspiration is important in politics.
but he alone didnt change legislation (in a democracy) therefore he's a failure
The ignorance of this comment is astounding
Yes just like the anti-abortionists failed again and again until they succeeded in taking away rights. Building a movement takes time, especially if it’s not flush with corporate money.
Age limit tied to Social Security retirement age and joining the military, voting, smoking, and drinking tied to the same age (18 or 21, take your pick). We either need to say people are of the appropriate age to do these things, or not. This cherry-picking bullshit has to go. Also, term limits. The constitution wasn't meant for a congressperson or senator to be in the same seat for 40+ years.
I disagree. I understand your viewpoint, but we need a more clear cut way to determine someone's "maturity" to make their own decisions. Voting can be indirectly lethal (using the term very loosely here). Ask one of the women who couldn't get an abortion and died from delivery complications, or the recent study that said the rollbacks the last president made for pollution is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of deaths, or lack of COVID restrictions enforcement. It's also currently arbitrary whether someone is tried as an adult in the case of a teenager that commits a homicide. So is the ability to give consent for intercourse, and that has a remote possibility of lethality too (delivery complications, STDs, etc.).
If only there was some sort of system by which voters could choose who their candidates are. Like before the general election parties could have internal elections to decide the candidates.
They could call it like a "First election" or even a "Primary election."
At this point it is economically unfeasible for anyone under 40, unless you are an affluent trust fund baby, to pay all the money required to run for a presidential campaign.
This is why it's always skewed towards old white men (hint: they can afford losing millions).
Literally no one ever has paid all of the money required to run a Presidential Campaign.
Sounds like you can easily run for president then, eh? Hypothetically speaking, if you were forced by gunpoint to run, what's stopping you in particular?
My criminal history wouldn't play well with voters. Small time drug possession, misdemeanor. It's since been expunged (hence me having my current job), but that doesn't mean it wouldn't come up.
Fun fact: I was actually offered the opportunity to run for state gov by my states party, and turned it down due to aforementioned criminal history.
I don't know what fucking fantasy reality you live in where no criminals run for office; we the attorney General of Texas, George Santos indictment, Americas mayor Rudy Juliani indictment, fucking Trump. We can keep going on literally forever listing criminal pieces of shit who have been in government positions.
Your argument here is failing.
You're describing situations that the public very much is aware of.
I'm not concerned with getting in trouble. I was concerned with winning the election and I know who my potential constituents would have been and their feelings on marijuana possession.
It's on the ballot to be recreational in my state so maybe I'll revisit after that passes, as the optics would improve significantly.
I'm not interested in running an already-uphill campaign with an albatross around my neck. Consider that, as a potential candidate, I have superior knowledge of my electorate than some random dude who doesn't even know where I live.
Judging from the Republicans presidential candidates debate, the selection is limited to idiots, stupid idiots, and dangerous idiots.
That's who their voters want. You're mad at republican voters. I don't know why people don't realize that.
I am constantly angry at ignorant, uneducated, rural retards. Yes, you are correct.
As long as you take Bernie with you. As a liberal I hate the hypocrisy of calling for term limits, while rallying behind Bernie, an ineffectual career politician who can't get shit done and is all nice soundbites. He's also a dinosaur.
IMHO Bernie is best suited to be an advisor or advocate, if he wants to continue.
For sure. He's got great ideas, but he doesn't have that thing that makes people want to rally behind him. Like I mentioned, he couldn't even get his own party's nomination, which means he would have gotten wrecked in Presidential election.
Tell me more about politics please.