Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 362: Now With Diet Coke Button

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://i.imgur.com/WKjPjPQ.jpg

---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-challenge-trump-impeachment-trial-11611683182

Disgusting and obvious bullshit to get them out of having to admit that theyre letting Trump off the hook for almost murdering them and their colleagues.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

*crying Wojak with a MAGA hat meme* "HE'S CLEARLY IN COGNITIVE DECLINE"

From the twitter responses it seems instead the response is how unpresidential this is. Ugh.

---

The response was because the transcript was literally already up on the Whitehouse website, combined with Doocey having asked a bunch of dumb shit prior to that as well.

---

My understanding is that the question had been answered in detail already by that point in the conference, so the question itself was more rude than Biden's snarky reply.

But Biden wasn't making fun of a reporter's disability so I guess that's his bad.

---

I would have been super stoked if that was the extent of Trump's hostility to the media.

I mean not really because that would have been a normal expectation for a president before Trump so I wouldn't have thought much of it, but you get the idea.
---

fuming posted...

I didn't think it was sexism until the "crazy bitches" post, but that kind of language made me

Just imagining this CEmen calling people sexist if they say a dude being a dickhead is a dickhead. Lmfao.

masterplum posted...

Sounds like the daughter took pictures of her own phone to get back at her mom

And would you even be surprised if that were true coming from this bunch? That's what I mean. Anything could be possible here. She is trying to get her mother arrested all the time, trying to ruin her career, and trying to get emancipated too. I have zero trust in anyone in this situation. I hope they find the truth out and put conway away for a long ass time if she did it.

masterplum posted...

I swear if it was AOCs daughter or whatever you guys would be saying it's obviously the daughters fault

Ding ding ding.

Remember it was believe all women until Biden's accuser came out lol. I mean, I will agree conservatives are just as hypocrites on their end of the spectrum also, but it's wild just sitting here in the middle scoffing as Lasa while seeing both these sides be hypocrites whenever convenient.


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Term limits aren't the answer tbh, better people is. Bernie has been in congress 30 years, still killing it.

Term limits are the answer and Bernie could have killed it for 12 years in the Senate, 6 years in the House, and however many years as a governor as the Dem Establishment kept cheating him out of the nomination with super delegates.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Term limits are a terrible idea. I'm much more in favor of mandatory retirement ages. If you're old enough to collect social security you're too old to be in Congress.

Age is literally a protected status under the law. Talk about being a bigot.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Term limits are the answer

You gotta answer the question too then: do you agree term limits are undemocratic, but still think theyre better anyway?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You gotta answer the question too then: do you agree term limits are undemocratic, but still think theyre better anyway?

I think as long as anyone supports term limits on the presidency that you have to support them on the branch that checks it also.

I think you could argue your answer both ways. Is it undemocratic that people can't choose the same person repeatedly over and over? Or is it undemocratic that more peoples voice can't be heard to represent people.

Is it the right system when representatives and Senators literally will do things they don't really believe just because they want to get re-elected? You could argue that makes sense because pandering to their electorate is representing their people the way they wish to be. But, you could also argue it incentivizes pandering instead of actual thoughts and beliefs.

---

Term limits are bad and have made state legislatures worse in states that have them. Theres already a mechanism for getting rid of members of Congress who have outstayed their welcome: elections.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Term limits are bad and have made state legislatures worse in states that have them. Theres already a mechanism for getting rid of members of Congress who have outstayed their welcome: elections.

Then you support no term limits on the presidency then right?

---

Age being a protected status means they can't just fire you for turning a certain age. Plenty of jobs, including government ones, mandate a retirement age where ability or mental acuity is a factor.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Age being a protected status means they can't just fire you for turning a certain age. Plenty of jobs, including government ones, mandate a retirement age where ability or mental acuity is a factor.

I see you are correct actually.


---

Corrik7 posted...

I think you could argue your answer both ways. Is it undemocratic that people can't choose the same person repeatedly over and over? Or is it undemocratic that more peoples voice can't be heard to represent people.

I dont understand how the second thing could be undemocratic if the voices are being decided democratically
---

Corrik7 posted...

Then you support no term limits on the presidency then right?

Worth debating, but especially after Trump exposed the real danger that a single fascist could cause to the country with the power of the presidency I think they're worth having on net.

In most cases, term limits are bad, but you have some tail risk of someone coming into power who is a real threat to democracy. The difference is that Congress has a ton of people so it averages out, but the presidency is just one person at a time so a safeguard is more valuable.

---

kevwaffles posted...

Age being a protected status means they can't just fire you for turning a certain age. Plenty of jobs, including government ones, mandate a retirement age where ability or mental acuity is a factor.

Corriks right though that you should be able to limit people based on those things, not just age
---

Corrik7 posted...

Is it the right system when representatives and Senators literally will do things they don't really believe just because they want to get re-elected? You could argue that makes sense because pandering to their electorate is representing their people the way they wish to be. But, you could also argue it incentivizes pandering instead of actual thoughts and beliefs.

For a Representative Democracy to function properly, the Representatives should always put the concerns of their constituents over their own when those things are in conflict.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

For a Representative Democracy to function properly, the Representatives should always put the concerns of their constituents over their own when those things are in conflict.

Then you agree with the people who wanted to overturn the election as doing what they were elected for and doing their jobs properly then, right?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Then you agree with the people who wanted to overturn the election as doing what they were elected for and doing their jobs properly then, right?

No because those concerns were factually unfounded.

If your constituents believe we need to sacrifice a virgin to make the sun come up every morning, you shouldnt argue for that in Congress if theres no evidence that its true.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

No because those concerns were factually unfounded.

Their constituents didn't care. It's about what they want. Not what you believe.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Their constituents didn't care. It's about what they want. Not what you believe.

Not a majority of them, for one thing

If you have some poll that said a majority of people in Missouri wanted Hawley to object to the Arizona ballots then I can see this point of view
---

Corrik7 posted...

I think as long as anyone supports term limits on the presidency that you have to support them on the branch that checks it also.

The President has way more power than an individual Congressman does.

---

For the record I dont support term limits on the Presidency
---

https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1354110723216039938?s=21

---

Jakyl25 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Age being a protected status means they can't just fire you for turning a certain age. Plenty of jobs, including government ones, mandate a retirement age where ability or mental acuity is a factor.

Corriks right though that you should be able to limit people based on those things, not just age

Ideally perhaps, but proving someone isn't able to use a scapel properly 100% of the time on an individual basis would result in a hell of a lot more deaths than accepting the fact that the vast majority of 80 year olds can't.
---

https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1353945777060499461
at least it's not Trump!

---

https://twitter.com/kfile/status/1354173133398405120?s=21

Of course

---

DeepsPraw posted...

https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1353945777060499461
at least it's not Trump!

The fact that you even linked to this Twitter is embarrassing, why would you put yourself on blast like this?

---

Yesmar_ posted...

The President has way more power than an individual Congressman does.

It doesn't matter. Your argument cannot literally be, it is okay here but not there because it isn't as important.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

For the record I dont support term limits on the Presidency

.
How about mayors or governors.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-challenge-trump-impeachment-trial-11611683182

Disgusting and obvious bullshit to get them out of having to admit that theyre letting Trump off the hook for almost murdering them and their colleagues.

I look forward to a future President just straight up executing members of the opposition party with 2 weeks left in their term. Can't do nothing about it because it would be too late for Congress to act. What an absolute farce.

---

Seanchan posted...

I look forward to a future President just straight up executing members of the opposition party with 2 weeks left in their term. Can't do nothing about it because it would be too late for Congress to act. What an absolute farce.

Extra fun fact: Mitch, who voted with Paul, could have avoided this very scenario by reconvening Congress after the 6th

---

Kinglicious posted...

.
How about mayors or governors.

Its all the same principle

If youre gonna play the game of democracy you have to go all in. If you trust people to elect their own leaders, you cant limit them by saying but you cant keep electing the same person.

Get the corporate money out of it sure, but term limits as an antidote to politicians being bought and paid for is so impotent as a response.

And if its just a response to the complacency of the electorate then the whole system is broken, which I personally believe it is, and term limits are like taking Tylenol to cure cancer.

I dont believe in representative democracy as a great form of government but I am willing to play along because Im not qualified to say for CERTAIN whats better.
---

I don't agree that this means impeachment is dead on arrival. Whether the Senate has jurisdiction to try an ex-president is debatable. There is no doubt that ex-presidents do not enjoy immunity from regular prosecution. But now that the Senate has decided it has jurisdiction - senators who disagreed on this legal question may still vote guilty.

---

I mean I can just use NYC but term limits as a checking definitely proven itself there to be better than not, especially with Bloomberg's third term shenanigans. Incumbents really do have advantages to them even when hated.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Then you agree with the people who wanted to overturn the election as doing what they were elected for and doing their jobs properly then, right?

While they are representatives, they are at the same time leaders.

The answer is no, they were not doing their job. They were being sheep when they are supposed to be leading the sheep.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't agree that this means impeachment is dead on arrival. Whether the Senate has jurisdiction to try an ex-president is debatable. There is no doubt that ex-presidents do not enjoy immunity from regular prosecution. But now that the Senate has decided it has jurisdiction - senators who disagreed on this legal question may still vote guilty.

I will send you $50 if they actually convict him. It's not happening. There's about a 5% chance they get any more than the 55 votes already assumed.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't agree that this means impeachment is dead on arrival. Whether the Senate has jurisdiction to try an ex-president is debatable. There is no doubt that ex-presidents do not enjoy immunity from regular prosecution. But now that the Senate has decided it has jurisdiction - senators who disagreed on this legal question may still vote guilty.

In theory, sure. In practice this sure looks like a pretext to allow Rs to vote against conviction while claiming that they're not condoning his actions. I can't see 12 Rs doing that now (unless something new comes out that makes Trump even more culpable than he already is known to be, which I don't rule out).

---

Kinglicious posted...

I mean I can just use NYC but term limits as a checking definitely proven itself there to be better than not, especially with Bloomberg's third term shenanigans. Incumbents really do have advantages to them even when hated.

It seems like the best check against NYC Mayors is the allure of a Presidential run
---

Executive term limits are different than legislative and I think you know that and are arguing in bad faith

That said, I am also in favor of age limits for all politicans

...would that make Yang the ideal one since he's evolving, only backwards into the mayoral race?

---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't agree that this means impeachment is dead on arrival. Whether the Senate has jurisdiction to try an ex-president is debatable. There is no doubt that ex-presidents do not enjoy immunity from regular prosecution. But now that the Senate has decided it has jurisdiction - senators who disagreed on this legal question may still vote guilty.

More than 1/3rd of the Senate has supposedly already come out against it.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/26/spending-stimulus-checks/

Lawmakers from both parties want less money in relief bill. Lol.

---

Sure am glad Dems won Georgia that sure did end up mattering

i'll believe there's a relief bill when i see it. until then it's a fourth string item, behind senate rules, impeachment, and whatever controversies get sprung up over the next month and a half.

---

Leahy was hospitalized a few hours ago, soon after officially being sworn in to preside the impeachment trial.

Wife is saying he's doing fine now and may even be back to work tomorrow, but that timing is....something.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Sure am glad Dems won Georgia that sure did end up mattering

McConnell has already been forced to back down once. It mattered already.

---

Wanglicious posted...

i'll believe there's a relief bill when i see it. until then it's a fourth string item, behind senate rules, impeachment, and whatever controversies get sprung up over the next month and a half.

Shoulda called their bluff before the election. Trump lost the election by not having the balls.

---