Not quite a counterpoint, but since they stripped Governor Beshear of the ability to appoint a Senator in the place of McConnell, it's actually advantageous for the Democratic party that McConnell's seat remains in its limbo state. As it is, it's a non-vote. If an emergency election were run, most likely it would be filled by another R.
So, yes, they're getting away with pretending McConnell is alive (the opposite of murder?), and the Democrats have cause to just play along.
And it gets worse if McConnell is not dead (and not stuck on life support with little hope for recovery). It's routine to let federal elected officials cling to power until pried from their cold, dead hands. So long as there's a chance he might recover, McConnell's cabinet is going to insist Kentucky waits, and again the Democrats have good cause to let his vote stay absent from the Senate floor.
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.
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.
Its gotta be easy to run against the worst people possible. The ads write themselves. If you want to win of course.
Maybe thats why democrats didnt want to prosecute Trump. Gotta get one more election in with the big bad guy. Plus you can genocide whoever you want and break union strikes. What are they gonna do, let trump win? I wonder who will be the bad cop after Trump croaks.
It points to the fact that if you want things to change, the Dems are not going to help you. I'm sorry if the truth causes you to doom-out and not be able to fight. You should work on that. Pretending in a lie so your feelings don't hurt, so you can fight for an "option" that will not save you, is far more harmful.
Saying "the Democrats have no desire to change things or save us" is not the same as saying "there is no hope".
I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Things are very very bad. If your mental state has deteriorated to the point where you feel that the truth is "doomerism" and that you need to believe in false hope just to mentally survive, you need to genuinely tend to your mental health. Fussing at your triggers online is not helping. In fact if you're like most people, the online time is probably only hurting.
The Democrats are not going to save you. A future where you matter can be forged, just not through them. I hope you can find some real future to hold onto🧡
I do discuss viable options. I didn't in this post. It is not viable to do so in every interaction. To take your very valid frustration with the status quo out on me, someone who sees and fights, is far more harmful than my glib reminder that the Democrats will not fix the way things are, only perpetuate them.
You seem to be very thirsty for real action. You can't get that here, my friend.
If you still want to hang out here, and you need viable suggestions to be mentioned for your own mental health, I would suggest that you add them any time you see a comment that you feel is "dooming". If you want the work, do the work. Hoping that people leaving 3 second comments do it, is a losing strategy. Getting angry at allies, taking your very valid frustration at your current situation out on them, hurts your cause far far more than a comment like my original one could.
I feel like their point was that if being told that democrats wont save us sends you into a doomerism spiral of misery and despair, that's maybe something you should work on yourself. And a more sober reading of our current situation is not that one should lose all hope, but that they should find it outside the democratic party.
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?
A lot of young people are just getting interested in politics, especially new Progressives, and they'll be seeing this for the first time. A concise synopsis can do a lot of good, so it wouldn't hurt to be patient and move on, without being condescending. Or not.
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.
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.
I'm not saying they get the seat automatically forever. If people don't like them they can still vote them out. I just think having a rep with a proven track record that you can vote for helps stop things like the Platner situation from happening every cycle. It's hard to find people willing to put up with a public life, and often harder to find those that don't have skeletons in their closets. I don't know why we want to force people to find a new rep if they feel like their current one is doing well. Obviously people should be able to run against them still.
👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
Term limits are anti-democratic. You're saying that we can't trust the voters, so we need a rule; like they're children. If you think the voters are the problem, then you don't believe in democracy.
The mistake is believing that the situation with McConnell and the other dinosaurs is what the voters chose, rather than a system where the voters don't get a meaningful choice. A system where the Senate itself is undemocratic. Not to mention the electoral college. Is McConnell's long carrier due to his popularity in KY, or his popularity with the donor class?
We need more democracy in our democracy, not less.
Term limits are not suggesting voter competence at all they are imposed to prevent systemic, anti-democratic corruption. it's the opposite of what you said. term limits support a healthy representative democracy. more candidates flow through, the more change.
I agree with you. Career politicians are not inherently bad. In fact, they can be very good, when someone strategically works for an issue or constituency over a long period and can enact long-term change, much like having a CEO for a decade vs having a CEO for a quarter. The problem is the corruption, which is not solved by term limits. Term limits actually make it easier to capture candidates, makes them cheaper and more disposable.
We need term limits because we can't trust politicians to not abuse their indefinite stay in office to further their own agendas and line their pockets. Adding term limits won't fully prevent this, but it will help.
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.
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.
It's amazing how much of what Republicans do makes sense when you assume that they're always scrambling in response to their complete lack of forward planning.
That's why it always takes Fox a few days before they settle on the talking points that they're going to use to minimize whatever the latest fuckup was.
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.
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.
If Mitch were declared dead, a special election would have had to have been held and anyone could have run in it. Tommy Tuberville would have run
This is total imagination from a five-day-old account. What the fuck are you drinking?
A special election called by the governor of Kentucky and held by the state of Kentucky will have candidates allowable by Kentucky ballot access law. Even as minimal as they are, that's a far smaller group than the "anyone" you cite.
And then you throw Tuberville in, saying he'd "split the Republican vote"???
Tommy Tuberville is the incumbent senator from Alabama. Why the actual fuck would he give up his own Senate seat to run in an extra election in a different state -- that he would have to move to if elected -- in order to get a job he already has?
Let’s not pretend
That's rich, lol. Let me know when Daffy Duck shows up for your imaginary Kentucky special election.
I heard there was also a quirk of electing a replacement. Prior to August 3rd, it would have been a new election. While republicans would normally win, they have an issue with their primary. The other republican could have run and split the vote. This could have let a democrat sneak in for 6 months.
Things I have heard, that may or may not be accurate but do not sounds like "batshit stuff."
If its after the 3rd, they can't do the special election because its too close to the regular election, I guess it takes 3 months to organize the special election. Nevermind that the special election person would get sworn in for most of November and December.
I have also seen, I beleive for this one, that it may be that the GOP would pick 3 replacements, and the Governor who is a Democrat, picks from.thise three, maybe I am thinking of a different state, but they risk the Governor picking the "least crazy" of the three.
More likely, I saw a comment that if McConnel is gone, it disrupts several comittees and could shift them to the Dems or tie them. His successor is not guaranteed to be his replacement in these comittees.
That would certainly make a difference. This administration has shown that they absolutely respect judges and the rule of law, and I’m sure they’d comply immediately. There’s no way they’d file endless motions and appeals in order to achieve their ends regardless.
101 replies
Not surprised they’re dragging it out past the appointment window. The empty seat is the feature, not the bug.
But it is Mitch McConnel's dream job though.
Republicans don't want democracy, they want whatever puts their beliefs first and cheating is not out of the question.
Bring out your dead!
Not quite a counterpoint, but since they stripped Governor Beshear of the ability to appoint a Senator in the place of McConnell, it's actually advantageous for the Democratic party that McConnell's seat remains in its limbo state. As it is, it's a non-vote. If an emergency election were run, most likely it would be filled by another R.
So, yes, they're getting away with pretending McConnell is alive (the opposite of murder?), and the Democrats have cause to just play along.
And it gets worse if McConnell is not dead (and not stuck on life support with little hope for recovery). It's routine to let federal elected officials cling to power until pried from their cold, dead hands. So long as there's a chance he might recover, McConnell's cabinet is going to insist Kentucky waits, and again the Democrats have good cause to let his vote stay absent from the Senate floor.
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.
Maybe they're waiting a few days to make it less obvious
Gotta figure out which day has the best payouts on polymarket.
It's sad that this is probably the answer.
They're all about the technicalities:
"We didn't declare him dead immediately after the deadline...
...we waited a few days! STILL COUNTS! PSYCHE!"
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.
YESSSS go Dems GO! Show the orange CHEETO!!
Schmuck is busy with his side hustle with Israel, as well as insider trading, he doesn't have time for this shit.
He died how he lived. Subverting democracy.
His staffers have committed fraud & have also apparently committed forgery.
They need to be indicted in 2029.
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.
The Democrats have no appetite to indict the GOP
Social Democrats do. It's part of their plank.
It's tough to try to indict the GOP when the majority of american voters decided they don't care and voted the ringleader back into the White House...
Its gotta be easy to run against the worst people possible. The ads write themselves. If you want to win of course.
Maybe thats why democrats didnt want to prosecute Trump. Gotta get one more election in with the big bad guy. Plus you can genocide whoever you want and break union strikes. What are they gonna do, let trump win? I wonder who will be the bad cop after Trump croaks.
It points to the fact that if you want things to change, the Dems are not going to help you. I'm sorry if the truth causes you to doom-out and not be able to fight. You should work on that. Pretending in a lie so your feelings don't hurt, so you can fight for an "option" that will not save you, is far more harmful.
Saying "the Democrats have no desire to change things or save us" is not the same as saying "there is no hope".
I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Things are very very bad. If your mental state has deteriorated to the point where you feel that the truth is "doomerism" and that you need to believe in false hope just to mentally survive, you need to genuinely tend to your mental health. Fussing at your triggers online is not helping. In fact if you're like most people, the online time is probably only hurting.
The Democrats are not going to save you. A future where you matter can be forged, just not through them. I hope you can find some real future to hold onto🧡
I do discuss viable options. I didn't in this post. It is not viable to do so in every interaction. To take your very valid frustration with the status quo out on me, someone who sees and fights, is far more harmful than my glib reminder that the Democrats will not fix the way things are, only perpetuate them.
You seem to be very thirsty for real action. You can't get that here, my friend.
If you still want to hang out here, and you need viable suggestions to be mentioned for your own mental health, I would suggest that you add them any time you see a comment that you feel is "dooming". If you want the work, do the work. Hoping that people leaving 3 second comments do it, is a losing strategy. Getting angry at allies, taking your very valid frustration at your current situation out on them, hurts your cause far far more than a comment like my original one could.
I feel like their point was that if being told that democrats wont save us sends you into a doomerism spiral of misery and despair, that's maybe something you should work on yourself. And a more sober reading of our current situation is not that one should lose all hope, but that they should find it outside the democratic party.
I don't find any less validity in saying "That's a bad idea" vs "This thing should happen" if both have no offered substance.
This is only an argument if one values democracy, which the voters of Trump clearly does not
true, but lets get real, the dnc doesnt care what you think either, unless you are by chance mega rich?
Does anyone remember when Biden stepped down and Republicans were real mad that the democrats were "hiding" his decline?
WHERE’S GEORGE CLOONEY TO SAVE US?!
To the Batmobile, stat!
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?
"guys, I am going to say something really brave and really controversial: Kittens are cute."
A lot of young people are just getting interested in politics, especially new Progressives, and they'll be seeing this for the first time. A concise synopsis can do a lot of good, so it wouldn't hurt to be patient and move on, without being condescending. Or not.
Is he dead yet?
Not officially
Wait is he officially dead?
shroedinger's mcconnell.
Schroedinger's Scumbag
I prefer the Pavlovian McKiddieFiddler.
Whenever I think of the orange child rapist being dead I salivate.
I'm waiting on rigor mortis: habeus corpus.
Mitch got smarter when his brain died. I hope he is getting bed sores.
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.
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.
The problem with what you’re saying is that your idea of a good representative isn’t everybody’s idea of a good representative.
I'm not saying they get the seat automatically forever. If people don't like them they can still vote them out. I just think having a rep with a proven track record that you can vote for helps stop things like the Platner situation from happening every cycle. It's hard to find people willing to put up with a public life, and often harder to find those that don't have skeletons in their closets. I don't know why we want to force people to find a new rep if they feel like their current one is doing well. Obviously people should be able to run against them still.
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.
I'd set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs.
What was that? Retirement age is now 100?
👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100.
Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it's to the rich's benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs.
A McDonald's manager and McDonald's hiring contract would have prevented this.
Term limits are anti-democratic. You're saying that we can't trust the voters, so we need a rule; like they're children. If you think the voters are the problem, then you don't believe in democracy.
The mistake is believing that the situation with McConnell and the other dinosaurs is what the voters chose, rather than a system where the voters don't get a meaningful choice. A system where the Senate itself is undemocratic. Not to mention the electoral college. Is McConnell's long carrier due to his popularity in KY, or his popularity with the donor class?
We need more democracy in our democracy, not less.
Term limits are not suggesting voter competence at all they are imposed to prevent systemic, anti-democratic corruption. it's the opposite of what you said. term limits support a healthy representative democracy. more candidates flow through, the more change.
Without finance reform first, I think it will end up going the opposite direction honestly
And once we do have finance reform, I think term limits are unnecessary
I agree with you. Career politicians are not inherently bad. In fact, they can be very good, when someone strategically works for an issue or constituency over a long period and can enact long-term change, much like having a CEO for a decade vs having a CEO for a quarter. The problem is the corruption, which is not solved by term limits. Term limits actually make it easier to capture candidates, makes them cheaper and more disposable.
We need term limits because we can't trust politicians to not abuse their indefinite stay in office to further their own agendas and line their pockets. Adding term limits won't fully prevent this, but it will help.
Who wants turtle soup?
::::MITCH MCCONNELL:::
Starring in the new hit musical:
::::WEEKEND AT MITCH'S:::::
Now in residency at the Yeehaw Theater in beautiful BRANSON, MO.
Of course they'll get away with it, with complicit controlled opposition
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.
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.
This makes 100% sense.
It's amazing how much of what Republicans do makes sense when you assume that they're always scrambling in response to their complete lack of forward planning.
That's why it always takes Fox a few days before they settle on the talking points that they're going to use to minimize whatever the latest fuckup was.
How many autopenned docs have been signed in his name while he's been in the morgue? No one seems to know.
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?
Mitch's seat isn't as safe as you think it is. I believe Charles Booker has a good chance of defeating Andy Barr in the General.
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.
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 TubervilleThomas 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.This is total imagination from a five-day-old account. What the fuck are you drinking?
A special election called by the governor of Kentucky and held by the state of Kentucky will have candidates allowable by Kentucky ballot access law. Even as minimal as they are, that's a far smaller group than the "anyone" you cite.
And then you throw Tuberville in, saying he'd "split the Republican vote"???
Tommy Tuberville is the incumbent senator from Alabama. Why the actual fuck would he give up his own Senate seat to run in an extra election in a different state -- that he would have to move to if elected -- in order to get a job he already has?
That's rich, lol. Let me know when Daffy Duck shows up for your imaginary Kentucky special election.
I apologize, I meant Thomas Massie.
Now then: go fuck yourself, asshole.
Nah, too busy watching you do that, lol. Because people from here know the difference between Massie and Tuberville.
You're just another very new account warming up for the midterms.
I think that anybody but a Republican winning that special election was always a pipe dream.
If they dragged Strom Thurmond’s barely animated husk in to vote, they can wheel Mitch in to pretend like he knows what he’s doing.
"And yet, they haven't done so." Captain Obvious.
I heard there was also a quirk of electing a replacement. Prior to August 3rd, it would have been a new election. While republicans would normally win, they have an issue with their primary. The other republican could have run and split the vote. This could have let a democrat sneak in for 6 months.
Things I have heard, that may or may not be accurate but do not sounds like "batshit stuff."
If its after the 3rd, they can't do the special election because its too close to the regular election, I guess it takes 3 months to organize the special election. Nevermind that the special election person would get sworn in for most of November and December.
I have also seen, I beleive for this one, that it may be that the GOP would pick 3 replacements, and the Governor who is a Democrat, picks from.thise three, maybe I am thinking of a different state, but they risk the Governor picking the "least crazy" of the three.
More likely, I saw a comment that if McConnel is gone, it disrupts several comittees and could shift them to the Dems or tie them. His successor is not guaranteed to be his replacement in these comittees.
Corruption by force of habit rather than directed toward any specific goal.
"Death of
StalinMcConnell" supercut, wen?Great reference, hands down my favorite movie, The Death of Stalin.
I've never seen it end to end, just caught clips on YT. It's got a stacked cast, and seemed soaked in deep, dark humor.
I cannot recommend it enough.
If those kids could read they would be angry.
Through all of this I am reminded of at least one silver lining: At the end of the day, we won't have Mitch.
They already did get away with it.
That's IMPOSSIBLE! His state has a DEMOCRAT Governor who said he MUST show Proof of Life!
I hear a lot of talk and not much action. Oh wait, he's a democrat, i get it now.
I mean, he is likely in a hospital close to his home or close to the senate?
Cant someone figure out which hospital then check rooms one by one?
If he is dead, theres probably not much security. I mean.. hospitals main doors are open to the public.
In fact, you cannot just go into hospitals and start checking rooms one by one.
You can start but may not finish.
I did 234 and 236, he's not there.
I'll check those refrigerators in the basement.
A judge could order similar though.
That would certainly make a difference. This administration has shown that they absolutely respect judges and the rule of law, and I’m sure they’d comply immediately. There’s no way they’d file endless motions and appeals in order to achieve their ends regardless.
For what reason? A sick person is in a hospital and no law has been broken.
Why not? I didn't ask anyone last several times I went to the hospital, I just walked in and went down the hall. Who is going to stop you?
Unless it's a quarantine area, or possibly ICU but even ICU wasn't an issue to just walk through.
But I would think the telling sign would be someone outside in a suit. Wouldn't he have some protection or guard?
What kind of reality do you live in where you think you can just start going room to room in a hospital looking for someone?
There are a number of new accounts in this thread posting absurdly incorrect shit; I think the machinery is getting warmed up for the midterms.