391
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Spike@feddit.de 157 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"On Sept. 29, Dianne Feinstein, 90, died of natural causes. She had cast a vote in the Senate less than a day prior."

Banger first two sentences. As an observer not from the US, this feels like Emperors New Clothes to me. But instead of a naked emperor, you have paraded a corpse through the senate and acted as if she was a fighter like Xena, Warrior Princess or something.

[-] b34k@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

As a Californian, I’ll say its been feeling damn near “Weekend and Bernie’s” for months now.

I dunno who was actually casting her votes, but I doubt they were aligned with what the people of my state would have wanted.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago

Weekend at Bernie’s. The film, not Sanders.

[-] DragonAce@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I honestly think there are now a few of those "Weekend at Bernie's" scenarios playing out in congress. McConnell comes to mind as the most obvious, he has already had a couple of public examples of him losing his cognitive abilities, but everyone pretends not to notice and they keep tripping over themselves trying to cover for him, similar to how they did with Feinstein.

[-] Spike@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

I am not allowed to say hateful things here I think, but man I really hope McConnell lives a long life. He seems to be in perfect health and enjoys living by the looks of it, and I want that joy to continue for him as long as possible :) :) :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

We need to stop allowing folks to remain in power after the age of like 65.

[-] rainynight65@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

I am in favour of both age and term limits for politicians. For one, if regular people are supposed to retire at 65ish and realistically often struggle to find work once they go past their 40s, there is no reason why politicians should be allowed to stay in their jobs through their 70s and sometimes 80s.

And I am in favour of term limits because it would keep the career politicians out of the game. Very few of them are any good.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Natural causes my ass. Cunt had dementia and they kept her around for power ever one of her votes for the last 3 years should be invalidated.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

Dementia would still be considered natural causes wouldn't it?

[-] Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Not if it's magical dementia.

[-] jhulten@infosec.pub 15 points 1 year ago

Anything not an accident or homicide is natural causes when you are 90.

[-] Aqarius@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Whose joke was it? "Hit by a car? Natural causes: if he weren't 90, he'd been fast enough to get out of the way!"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Maeve@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Reagan “governed” with Alzheimer’s?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

for power ever one of her votes for the last 3 years should be invalidated.

I think you missed one letter and a dot there.

Are we at stage "invalidating votes of senile old coots" yet? Have you SEEN how many crusty bastards are in there? I'd say the Dems would LOVE this as the demographic helps them immensely.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago

It's been bizarre watching everyone claim she's a senile old bat who should've stepped down decades ago, to hearing everyone praise how devoted she was. It's been a very disappointing journey for sure, the stuff of "boring dystopia" posts.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago

It’s an old etiquette thing about not speaking ill of someone but present to defend themselves. There are exceptions, imo, but I’m not Emily Post.

[-] rDrDr@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

I spoke ill of her while she was still alive. I promise not to make any new arguments, as that would be unfair.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] avogadro@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Memorials would not be very pleasant if we only remembered people as they were in their final days

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Memorials would be very uncomfortable if people told the truth instead of pufffing eachother up with hot hair and bullshit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I think being a public figure that put her position ahead of the needs of the public she supposedly served gives her an exemption from the "peaceful words for the dead rule"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 45 points 1 year ago

Lest we forget she was a consummate centrist.

We should remember her for her actions through her career as a politician. Where she stood on equality, lgbtq+ rights, the death penalty, government surveillance... How she used her position in the Senate to enrich herself through means not allowed by commoners.

There are a lot of shit bags in government. And one less doesn't change that. But let's not paint her as a champion of anything but herself just because she's dead.

[-] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

This sounds like some Ruth Bader Ginsberg shit.

You can't criticize someone now that they're dead despite wanting to cling to power over pride and legacy!

Yes, yes we can. And anyone who enabled that shit should take a good hard look into themselves and get the fuck out of politics.

[-] Hello_there@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

Holy shit. What a takedown. With receipts.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Been a lot of whitewashing lately of people like Feinstein, Biden and Pelosi. And it seems like you can't even criticize them or you get called a Trumper.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Biden is not even in the same league of asshattery as Pelosi and Feinstein, despite a long career and being in the Executive twice. I’ll never forget Pelosi talking down to a high school student who asked her a question about economic equity—I don’t remember the kid’s question, but her response is seared into my brain. She got pissy and said “America is a capitalist country” like capitalism was handed down from god on high or enshrined in the Constitution. It was contemptuously delivered, to a degree as bad as I once heard Rick Santorum speak to a student who asked him about LGBTQ rights.

Feinstein was a regressive in a lot of ways, perhaps she escaped being labeled a DINO because her votes were more important than her sometimes asinine rhetoric.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

I’ll never forget Pelosi talking down to a high school student who asked her a question about economic equity—I don’t remember the kid’s question, but her response is seared into my brain. She got pissy and said “America is a capitalist country” like capitalism was handed down from god on high or enshrined in the Constitution.

Here's the clip: https://youtu.be/MR65ZhO6LGA

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Ah, thanks... the questioner wasn't a high school student, but appears to be in their 20s. Pelosi's response is less flagrantly contemptuous than I remember, but revealed her to be a dyed-in-the-wool corporatist, which was equally upsetting and has colored my perception of her ever since. Feinstein basically wanted to publicly flay Snowden and took such an extreme view of state secrets (among other things), and I was always curious about the politics that led her to get reelected term after term.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

You'll find, historically, Dems question themselves a lot more on average. As "Dems need to fall in love" with the party plan, they end up asking way more questions than the "GoPniks need to fall in line" bunch.

So, you may easily decide that you DON'T get called a trumper just by asking questions. It's in the nature to review and discuss things.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Being called a Trumper for criticising a democrat is no different than Christians who say you're a devil worshiper if you don't worship the Christian god. Just because I criticize a democrat, doesn't mean I'm a republican. It's not a knife edge. Someone like Pelosi is not anywhere near leftist enough for me, but if I criticize her for that, I'm somehow a Trump supporter?? How does that make sense?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maeve@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

“DoN’t BoTh SiDeS! FaLsE eQuIvAlEnCe.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Nobody is talking about the other side, that's exactly my point. I'm talking about this side, forget the GOP and their idiocy, worry about the people you want in power, not those other idiots. Why is it that every criticism of the party I vote for, means in somehow on the side of republicans? Jesus fuck, people like Pelosi will be in power till they die because of people like you, who clearly want no change since you're not even allowing criticism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
[-] Void_Sloth@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We have age minimums because the mind has not finished developing and we should also have age maximums based on the average age cognitive decline sets in.

Until we are able to properly identify outliers it's probably best to stick with the subset of the population with the highest probability of meeting the minimum qualifications for the position.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Final? She was always a shithead.

[-] Nipplecreek@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Dems agree that it was stupid??

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
391 points (91.0% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4566 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