Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Crazy how massive brain damage makes you conservative and an easy ~~espionage~~ ~~bribery~~ campaign contribution target.
Fetterman's brain is broken. He's an embarrassment in more ways than one, and he needs to be put out to pasture asap.
Should have cognitive tests for campaigning or sitting members of government if they have a stroke. Guy had a stroke in 2022 got aphasia and then had severe depression in 2023. He was mid campaign when most of it happened so the Dems didn't want to replace him as he had all the momentum against Oz.
He was still the better choice then. Oz definitely wouldn't be better.
The problem is that we used to have “iq” tests that were enforced for voting. This is not a good precedent because it can be used for evil even though it’s probably the best thing to do.
I wish liberals would stop saying this. His brain didn't break. The democrats got duped.
His career will continue with the republicans where he was always gravitating to. The "progressive" label was used just to get his big foot in the door. The Dems got duped.
It's true, but his brain is broken also. Two things can be true at the same time.
Also, he's unbelievably crass and disrespectful.
You might be right, maybe he was a chud all along, idk.
But c'mon, it's obvious the stroke broke his brain. Before the stroke he was giving 10 minutes speeches from memory, after the stroke he can't finish a sentence.
it's both. his history shows the kind of liberal he was and he was never particularly progressive. he even avoided the term and disliked it lol. he got worse once elected though.. nowadays he's pathetically reprehensible as opposed to out of touch and middle of the road.
He should be running free, on a farm somewhere.
"Well Timmy, He went to live on a farm upstate so he can live carefree and chase squirrels."
He's one of the weak and slow. He'll get eaten first.
“He was a Democrat liberal darling,”
And then he suffered literal brain damage and has completely flipped his position on pretty much everything he previously stood for.
If you don't believe that conservative ideas in general, and MAGA ideas in particular, take root in feeble minds, Fetternan is proof.
People who vote based on loyalty don't seem to underatand this
I already don't like Fetterman but I do like a potted plant. Can a potted plant be more liked than Fetterman in this case.
Congressmen (and women) should have a 2 year term limit max. Six years of doing whatever the hell he wants with no regard for his constituents is insane.
You like many Americans are trying to solve cultural rot by putting in more rules. "If only we had a rule that ___" this wouldn't have happened. That's not going to solve this. Being a congress-person is a skill. It requires actual skill, and it takes time to get to know how to be most effective. You can put in this rule if you want, and it might solve the problem you're targeting, but it will create many more. You can't solve problems caused by cultural rot (literally tens of millions of voters being okay with this) by putting in more administrative rules. Ultimately , democracies grant the people the power to destroy democracy. That is what the US is choosing.
You like many Americans are trying to solve cultural rot by putting in more rules. "If only we had a rule that ___" this wouldn't have happened.
That also doesn't fix the problem of an administration that freely ignores the rules with complete impunity.
Being a congress-person is a skill. It requires actual skill
I could never tell by looking at them.
All I see is incompetents at best, and corrupt profiteers at worst. Often both.
I’m all for term limits, but 2 years is not nearly long enough to be effective in a job.
We have a lot of examples of state governments that have term limits. There's no evidence that governance has been improved. The only thing that changes is that more power shifts to the civil servants, and to the party bureacrats who control the revolving door to the next position.
Term limits are the kind of solutions that you hear MAGAts proposing: if it begins with "Why don't we just..." then it's probably already been thought of, been tried, and has failed.
The only thing that changes is that more power shifts to the civil servants,
And most importantly, power shifts to the lobbiests who help advise on how to write the laws to maximally benefit their clients. It's yet another carve out for billionaires and those who control extensive capital.
Well presumably he would be re-elected if he does what he has promised to do.
So in essence you want congressmen to have to campaign even more than they do now.
Depends on the job, but elected members of Congress get an incredible amount of support staff.
First, they have a full team of staffers who can guide them through the legislative processes/procedures. Communications, press, scheduling, admin, secretarial - all provided.
Second, they have support from their own party. Campaign offices, re-election staff, community outreach, all that sort of thing.
Of course, they still don't have time to read every single bill and understand the complexities. But the length of term doesn't help for things like that. The length of term is more to let your constituents decide whether you are doing your job. A vote of confidence/no confidence.
And, an underlying reason for short term limits is balance of power. One chamber of Congress (the House) is filled with an ever-changing cast of "average Joes". The other, more prestigious house (the Senate) is filled with power brokers and career politicians.
“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities - and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, […] you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders.
Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.
So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public.” – George Carlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBrbXOmnW70
I understand where you are coming from, but I think that recalls would be much more effective.
None of the top democracies have term limits for their representatives. Term limits do nothing to prevent people from electing shitheads.
They don't know what "term limits" mean. They might not even know what the term means and just accidentally strung it together even:
should have a 2 year term limit max.
What they're trying to complain about is the length of a term, not a limit to consecutive terms.
But like, best of luck explaining anything to them, every comment has multiple new things that need explained.
The US has term limits for its president.
More reps, shorter terms, recallable, chosen by sortition, etc, etc, etc. Or whatever we can all agree on.
Congressmen (and women)
Pedantic and off topic, but it would have been a shit ton easier if we just ate a masculine prefix and leave "man" as a gender neutral one.
Something extra douchey like "heman/hemen", so that all the douches would eagerly use it.
And everyone can just go back to using "man" as a gender neutral option like most languages were built around.
So we could say "Congressmen" to describe humans in Congress.
Like, what are you even suggesting?
Congresswomen? "Congress women"? "Women who are in Congress"?
Do you understand why none of those make sense?
It's because "congressmen" is already gender neutral.
"Mankind" literally includes everyone. Women, men, nonbinary, furries, saxophone players, your mother-in-law, literally every human
Why are you so hung up on genitals, that you insist they be brought up at every moment? How do you care enough to put that effort in, but never actually got pedantic enough to see what was correct?
Even more pedantic and off-topic, but this is actually how the English language used to work. In Old English, "man" just referred to a person, whether they were male or female, adult or child. If you wanted to refer to an adult male specifically, you would say "were", and an adult woman was a "wif". Eventually, male defaultism shifted the language such that "man" referred to an adult male, and adult females were called "wifmen" to avoid confusion, which eventually evolved into "women".
Incidentally, we still see "were" used in modern English as part of the construction of the world "werewolf", literally meaning "man-wolf".
Well at least with the Senate there's a Latin suffix system that is oft forgotten, that being tor trix suffix. So a male Senate member is a senator and female member is a senatrix.
What sucks is, knowing the average American voter? A Republican will probably win.
Wtf poll covers more than 100 points?!
Wrong type of scale. it’s a way of conveying a 2 part question. Do you like him or dislike him? Ok, now how much do you like or dislike him?
This goes:
HATE -100…………….0…………….+100 LOVE
I think its still one question (do you like him), but they convert those results in aggregate into a 'net approval rating' which is = (% approve - % disapprove). So 100% approval translates to +100 and 100% disapproval translates to -100, and the range is indeed from -100 to +100
You’re right, I was trying to explain it in a simple way.
I suspect he's being blackmailed by trump and his gang of degenerates.
OK but have you ever met someone from Pennsylvania because it can get weird, maybe he's just a representative. I had a lady introduce herself at an airport some months ago, within two sentences of telling me she was from PA, she was launching into an anti-abortion spiel. Nice lady. Nice people.
J/k but really you can't judge him based on what Dems think, he's not appealing to Dems. He's appealing for the centrists and the right-wingers of PA who want to feel like they're centrists. I hope he and the others who play these games get tossed out, but the wheels grind very fucking slow.