this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
759 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3635 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Only Mullin was being a child here

Really? The guy who challenged him to a fist fight "anytime, anywhere" and then agreed to it in the chambers wasn't being a child? Only the one who accepted the challenge? How does that work?

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The other guy was called to Congress by Congress I believe. Basically he was summoned or asked to be their to testify. TBH I dont know the circumstances of his presence but often you can't 'refuse' to show up.

So from the perspective of a citizen being summoned to testify before a Senate committee, then being challenged to a physical fight from a Senator while he is there.... its absolutely unequivocally Mullin's fault. Imagine going to court for a speeding ticket and the judge challenges you to a fist fight. You can't not show up and now you have to deal with somone trying to physically assault you?!?

GTFO. Mullin is a clown.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't care if those "tough guys" want to slog it out, but the choice of time and place shows such a serious lack of common sense that it would be alarming for a professional fighter, not to mention an elected representative.

The guy thought that, when challenged anytime anywhere, there and then, in Congress, during a hearing would be a good time and place. smh

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One is a senator, one is the president of the teamsters. There's a bit of difference there. That's not to mention one was summoned there and the other one works there. Sure, a physical fight is "silly", but it's only beneath one of their job positions.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's a bit of difference there.

What difference is that, exactly? They're both human adults. For the purposes of this conversation, that's all that matters. No one should be challenging anyone else to fist-fights. They're both children.

it's only beneath one of their job positions.

Totally okay for a union President to challenge a sitting US senator to a fist-fight. Okay. Sure. That makes a ton of sense.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let’s not both sides this one. One had great power and one goes to jail for not showing up and smiling.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I will "both sides" every issue where there's more than 1 person to blame, which is almost always.

Let's not "my tribe" this one.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol you’re really on a war path, what with your “you’re not the boss of me” and all

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 1 year ago

I really don't even know what that's supposed to mean...