top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 163 points 1 week ago (3 children)

His staffers have committed fraud & have also apparently committed forgery.

They need to be indicted in 2029.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    The Democrats have no appetite to indict the GOP

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 1 week ago

    That's adorable.

    Democrats coukd win every seat in every election and they won't do jack shit against any of these criminals.

    "TiMe tO mOvE oN aNd rEuNiTe tHe CoUnTrY" or some bull shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 106 points 1 week ago

    He died how he lived. Subverting democracy.

  • source
  • [–] 80 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Does anyone remember when Biden stepped down and Republicans were real mad that the democrats were "hiding" his decline?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Term limits wouldn't have prevented this scenario, but they would mitigate the damage any one politician can do. Term limits would greatly reduce the opportunity for a corrupt politician to become entrenched.

    We need term limits for Congress.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I understand the appeal of term limits, but I don't think they actually solve the problem. If politicians know they only have 2 terms then they are encouraged to play nice with industry contacts since they know they'll be out of a job soon. Additionally, I think there's something to be said about knowing your constituents and the inner workings of politics. A lot of political projects take a long time to realize and if people like the plan their politician has I don't see why we'd force them out. Consistent leadership can be very helpful for long term political goals. I don't think corrupt companies would care who they're bribing that year. They're just as happy to bribe one person for 40 years as 10 people for 4. If you get a good rep then it's nice to know that you don't have to worry about vetting a new one every time the limits come up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Term limits just push things to the unelected "advisors" and aids.

    An age limit would be a better option. I would push for 90% of life expectancy, which is 71 in the US. If you're over that age, you can't run again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I'd set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 41 points 1 week ago (1 child)
  • [–] 27 points 1 week ago

    Mitch got smarter when his brain died. I hope he is getting bed sores.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The only thing that's surprising is that they didn't immediately on the stroke of midnight submit a press release of his passing, given the suggestion that he needed to make it to August 3rd in order to avoid any chance of the governor appointing his replacement. I wouldn't have bet my own life on it, but I was halfway expecting to wake up this morning to the news of his passing.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    Maybe they're waiting a few days to make it less obvious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Dont worry, the DNC is ON IT. Schumer hasnt written a strongly worded memo on it yet, but I think he's considering it. I know that other than Beshear muttering some weak objections and not following through, the DNC has done and said nothing at all about it, but uh.. yeah vote blue no matter who.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 16 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Democracy is having more then two options to choose from. If the two party system is so great and everyone is fully reoresented, the blue and red conservatives shouldn't mind replacing First-past-the-post voting with something that let's people transfer their vote if their first pick doesn't win.

    But I guess wanting to able to vote how I want is a purity test... and we dont do that here right?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Can someone explain to me what the upside for the republicans is in this game?

    Mitch has a very safe seat and his replacement would probably be a dependable Republican vote. Now he can’t vote, can he?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    There isn't an upside. They're just as stuck as the Democrats are. Mitch isn't dead, he's likely severely incapacitated. They'd love to have him on the Senate floor voting R but he isn't healthy enough to do so, and the only way to remove a Senator is expulsion by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. That certainly wouldn't get enough votes and, at this point, is pretty irrelevant anyway since the seat would simply remain vacant.

    But you are correct that as long as he's ill he isn't voting, which is a good thing, which is why there was really no need for people to be all over Andy Beshear's nuts this past month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (14 children)

    In order to get the war powers resolution to fail, Fetterman had to vote with them. If Mitch were declared dead, a special election would have had to have been held and anyone could have run in it. Tommy Tuberville Thomas Massie would have run, split the Republican vote and a Democrat could/would have taken the seat and that resolution would not have failed. Let's not pretend the Republicans aren't engaging in fraud on purpose. They are. They know precisely what they are doing and they need to be held accountable. But they're on a very long list in that regard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 12 points 1 week ago

    Republicans don't want democracy, they want whatever puts their beliefs first and cheating is not out of the question.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I'm going to come out here and say he's not dead, just effectively dead. Like on life-support and little to no chance of recovery, but I think they'll hold on to that as an excuse... "He's going to get better"... Yeah no way bruv

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    This is only an argument if one values democracy, which the voters of Trump clearly does not

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    If those kids could read they would be angry.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Wait is he officially dead?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Actually he can continue his weekend at Bernie’s gig as long as they want, right now the senate looses his vote. He will 1000% be replaced another shitty republican, so this is the best solution for now.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    It's not in any way guaranteed that KY will elect another Republican. It's a state-wide seat in a state that elected a Democratic Governor.

    But for the moment, yes, Mitch being so obviously dead does hurt Republicans more.

    The reason that are not admitting he's dead is because they don't think they could win a special election. That's the full reason.

    They probably can't win in the general election in the current climate either, but that's a problem for November that Trump is working on. He's trying to steal the election, and that's what Republicans are pinning their hopes on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Of course they'll get away with it, with complicit controlled opposition

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Through all of this I am reminded of at least one silver lining: At the end of the day, we won't have Mitch.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    They already did get away with it.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›