“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.
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.
Weekend at Bernie’s. The film, not Sanders.
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.
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 :) :) :)
And the rest of the establishment’s politicians seem undead. :-/
We need to stop allowing folks to remain in power after the age of like 65.
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.
Politicians who know that their political career is about to end have the nasty habit of doing favors for their big corporation of choice, knowing that they’ll receive a cushy board position in return afterwards.
If you want to establish term limits, you also need to establish some sort of accountability for the time afterwards.
Accountability is needed with or without term limits. Too many politicians are deep in the pockets of big businesses. “Professional board member” is already one of the most popular sinecures for spent politicians. Term limits aren’t a silver bullet for general politician misconduct. Everything needs checks and balances, and politics has way too little of it.
I agree that we need younger people in these positions. We need those more in touch with what the average person is going through these days.
However, I disagree that we should set a hard age limit. If anything have them take some sort of cognitive exam every few years once they hit a certain age.
You need an impartial hard limit. Otherwise you get people like trump getting doctors to lie about their health. Sorry if you’re in good health and get the boot, but you knew what the limits were when you signed on.
Makes sense. Perhaps it could be something variable based on the average lifespan of the people in the country… it might even give them a little incentive to come up with a working healthcare system if it means they get to stay in office a little longer.
That’s a good idea. But cynical me says people in power like to keep that power, and they’d manipulate and restrict what data they used to calculate that average as it applies to their tenure.
True, but you can only fudge the numbers so much. And it would help to keep things in check if medical advancements are made in a way that only allows the rich to have a drastically longer lifespans.
You’d really want a hard number right around 65-70. People by that age have some level of cognitive decline, there’s evidence that around 50 is where it starts going down.
Right, what I mean by “based on the lifespan of the people” would be more of a percentage… not the full expected average lifespan.
So, for example, it could be 80% of the average life expectancy in the U.S. which looks to be around 76, so that would put the cap around 61.
But perhaps we could base it on studies of cognitive decline instead. If some future medicine is discovered (that most people have access to) which would allow everyone to continue functioning well at an older age, then I don’t have a problem if the average person is still doing well at an older age. In this case we could use some percentage of the average age of cognitive decline instead.
A cognitive exam would be a good idea regardless of any age. They need to be fit to serve.
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.
Dementia would still be considered natural causes wouldn’t it?
Not if it’s magical dementia.
Anything not an accident or homicide is natural causes when you are 90.
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!”
realistically the US media treats car accidents like natural causes.
The media? Damn near everybody. I can’t remember who said it, but the easiest way to get away with murder is to hit somebody with a vehicle.
Especially if they are on a bike.
Reagan “governed” with Alzheimer’s?
And astrology!
I think, tbh and fair, it was Nancy governing with astrology while Ronnie was unwell.
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.
Something awful must have happened to you as a child to refer to an old lady you’ve never met that way. IDGAF about politics. Have some respect for your damned self.
No reason to respect anyone who hasn’t earned that respect. Age has nothing to do with it.
I’m saying respect yourself and show some fucking decency. This ain’t about anyone but you. Hold yourself to a higher standard.
You edited your comment after I replied
Bro you’re not even responding to the person who said the original comment that you were responding to. She was a cunt don’t let her age make her into a saint in your eyes. She was a greedy self-serving cunt her entire adult life. To show her respect is to kneel and submit to this bullshit continuing for another 90 years.
I’m sorry, is it particularly stupid in here today?
It doesn’t matter what she was.
You are disrespecting yourself AND degrading your point of view.
How about instead of ranting like an imbecile you pop down a couple of bullet points enlightening us as to this woman’s shortcomings?
This is a discusssion forum. “She’s a cunt.” gets us nowhere.
Why is this a controversial thing for me to point out?
Ok I agree it doesn’t matter what she was. You defended her and said we disrespect ourselves for calling an “old lady a cunt”. Which is it? Is it not ok to call a cunt a cunt because they’re old? Just because you don’t like the language we choose to use to describe this person doesn’t put you on a moral high ground. I think she was a cunt care to discuss otherwise? No? Then kindly fuck off 👌
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.
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.
I spoke ill of her while she was still alive. I promise not to make any new arguments, as that would be unfair.
I clearly said I’m not in agreement, but do you.
deleted by creator
Call her selfish, kiniving, a terrible person, whatever. But it doesn’t help anything or fit, as I’ve seen in this thread, to use an insult for female promiscuity and call her a whore. I’ve also seen no evidence whatsoever to merit calling her a traitor.
Conniving.
Memorials would not be very pleasant if we only remembered people as they were in their final days
Memorials would be very uncomfortable if people told the truth instead of pufffing eachother up with hot hair and bullshit.
We are gathered here today to remember all the ways grandma was kind of a bitch
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”
She was a piece of shit the whole time.
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.
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.
Holy shit. What a takedown. With receipts.
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.
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.
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
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.
What economic system would you recommend beyond capitalism? Are there any large countries that have successfully implemented this?
For economic systems, it seems like just about every country mixes capitalism and socialism, and some of those economies lean more towards one rather than the other.
Perhaps a better discussion would be over what the best mixture is rather than the simple: “Capitalism/Socialism is bad” that people seem to argue so much over.
I was hoping for an actual discussion rather than a link to a 20 min video like that.
That 20 min video was all “capitalism is bad” and only for a few seconds near the end where he proposes “Communist Realism” without even attempting to explain what it is or compare any sort of pros and cons.
So to summarize the video for anyone else who doesn’t want to waste their time (in the context of the questions I proposed):
What economic system would you recommend beyond capitalism?
Video: “Communist Realism, buy my book”
Are there any large countries that have successfully implemented this?
Video: “No, they weren’t given a chance because capitalist countries overthrew them in one way or another.”
Perhaps a better discussion would be over what the best mixture is rather than the simple: “Capitalism/Socialism is bad” that people seem to argue so much over.
The video didn’t really address this other than:
Video: “Capitalism bad, people are stuck thinking there’s nothing else”…
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.
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?
Do you really get push back on that? Most of the Democrats are corrupt. I think Biden is relatively cut and dry but Pelosi is a crook.
And it seems like you can’t even criticize them or you get called a Trumper
/cue dramatic music
“DoN’t BoTh SiDeS! FaLsE eQuIvAlEnCe.
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.
I think you missed Maeve’s sarcasm, which was supposed to be obvious from the up- and down-casing of the letters in her words. When someone writes in that way deliberately, they’re making fun of people who would write the same sentence with a straight face.
I’m a leftist and get called a Trumper all the time for criticizing Dems to be better.
Talking shit about Biden and telling everyone to vote for a third party instead is not “criticizing Dems to be better,” it’s literally how you would put Trump back in the White House
I’m not seeing anyone in this thread telling anyone to vote third party.
When it comes down to voting for Biden or whatever racist shitbag the GOP trots out, I’m going to vote for Biden. But don’t tell me I’m not allowed to criticize him or the party. Acting like a political party is above criticism comes off as fascist.
And before you get on to me about only criticizing Democrats, I think we can all agree that Republicans are worse, but if we aren’t allowed to call out Dems on shit, then we truly don’t have a democracy anymore.
I get the impulse that talking shit about a political candidate is turning people off of voting or voting for the realistic candidate, but I would argue that doing shit like keeping old politicians in office does a lot more to turn people off of voting. If we want people to vote, then they need to be inspired by a candidate and feel good about voting. And of course they don’t feel inspired when they hear criticisms about both parties, but clearly just telling people that they have to vote for someone to keep someone like Trump from office only seems to work for reelection, but it didn’t stop him from getting in office in the first place. I’m pretty confident that Trump won’t be president again, I’m not so confident about the next guy like him.
I’m not confident he won’t win against the crappy candidates dnc keeps trotting out, andi doubt I’ll vote either party, but thank you for voicing the rest of my thoughts about it so well.
I took a brief look at the post history of the person I was responding to, that is what my comment was based on. Never anywhere did I suggest you shouldn’t criticize Democrats, of course all our elected leaders should be scrutinized.
And of course Feinstein should have retired years ago, just like Ginsburg should’ve retired while Obama was president.
What I was arguing against is that guy"s “Biden is all bad, vote Green party” perspective, which only helps elect a Republican
I’m not a Democrat. I left the party.
Yes, so you’re ok with Trump being president over a Democrat, which is why people are saying that to you
Biden better start earning the votes then. Don’t blame the voters, blame the politician that’s running.
I certainly will blame the dumbass votes that gave 2016 to Trump because they couldn’t stomach voting for Hilary.
Independent voters were 5% in a lot of states. Low turnout.
It’s a functionally two party system. Pick the less bad side, or stfu
HRC win popular vote, so nope.
As always, Dems blame everyone and everything but themselves. Hillary didn’t even visit very important states she needed. SMH
blame the politician that’s running.
I will, I blame the dipshit breaking all the laws trying to get back into a seat of power. His name is Trump lol. I’m sorry if you are confused.
Dr. West?
You’re getting downvoted but it’s what’s happening here. The GOP is not even an option in terms of who to vote for, so I only focus on Democrats and how to fix their issues. But no, suddenly now it’s a sin to point out any issues within your own party. It’s toe the line, or get called a Trumper.
I think Pelosi, Biden and the older generation is way too conservative and centrist, I want a more socially progressive democratic party that will push forward a more leftist agenda, led by younger, more left leaning Democrats, why is that a “Trumper” view?? Why am I not allowed to call out the people on the side I’m on?
I want a progressive agenda but how do such ideas gain traction when the opposition messaging does such a good job at mocking progressives that the mockers’ view of the agenda takes precedence over the actual agenda? Sometimes I feel like the progressive agenda comes preloaded with poison pills that are intended to give red meat to the opposition, aka is designed to fail.
Who is calling you a Trumper? You keep saying that, but I haven’t seen that anywhere here
The author of this article is almost certainly a democrat. And if you mention senile politicians without mentioning Trump, you are invariably a Trumper.
I mean when we’re all on the same side, must I add the most obvious ones? I’m not talking about the GOP and Trump, they’re far gone off the crazy cliff, they’re not saveable. I’m worried about the politicians I want to vote for, and point out the ones that make me angry and need a kick in the ass within the party I vote for.
You say anything negative about dems and they come out in full force calling you a red hat.
Gtfo with that. There’s plenty of legitimate shit talking about democrats. Just don’t be a “both sides” asshole or a hexbear goon.
My reddit and lemmy history strongly disagrees with you. Any criticism of dems is met with downvotes. Ill also argue that excusing shitty behavior from those on the left because “they’re not as bad as republicans” is lesser of two evils bullshit that has enabled us to continue slipping further and further in the wrong direction, as a whole.
Yeah, my reddit and lemmy history strongly disagree with you too, chachi. I’ve literally never been called out for criticizing democrats. But then again I don’t engage in weak “both sides” bullshit like you do.
And it’s funny how you initially said criticizing democrats gets you called a maga bootlicker, but now you say it’s just “downvotes”.
Comments and downvotes, now an exclusive response to comments online!
What are you trying to say? Yes, on a platform like Reddit or Lemmy, your options to respond are literally exclusive to commenting and/or voting.
Nice dodge, btw. You don’t have to respond to the crux of my response if you focus on a lesser point.
My point was you make it out as if comments and downvotes are exclusive. As if downvoting doesn’t send a message in itself.
The crux of your response? Saying that your personal online experience has been different than mine and somehow invalidates it? Was it really worth addressing? Maybe pay more attention to the comments you read through? You having not experienced it means nothing to those that have
I consider myself lib center and I’m surprised at how left Lemmy seems to be. I mostly filter out anything political now
People really don’t know what “left” is suppose to mean. Socialism is suppose to be a real political position, not a slur. What is consider liberal these days is really right-wing politics.
Yes.
You’re being downvoted, but you’re right. Definitely far left here, on average. My theory is that the people who stuck around after the reddit boycott tend to be more “woke”, to use a dumbass term.
Left in USA is right in the real world.
As much as I like the sentiment, it really isn’t true. There’s way too many theocratic fascists, liberal stooges that sell out their country for power, and combinations of the two in control of most of the world. There are a number of European countries where this is the case, but Europe isn’t the world. Outside of some counties in the global south that have elected socialists through democratic means (only to be ousted by the right), genuine leftist governments get destroyed or coopted most of the time.
Especially with regards to social issues like LGBTQ rights and discrimination of ethnic minorities, the USA is farther along in the conversation than even some of those European countries.
Left in the USA is constrained by the fact that the status quo is extremely right wing, so things like healthcare reforms and limits on corporations that progressives advocate are right wing in relation to all possible positions. However, policies as far right as the GOP’s are common globally.
Especially with regards to social issues like LGBTQ rights and discrimination of ethnic minorities, the USA is farther along in the conversation than even some of those European countries.
You’re absolutely right about that. The leftist paradise of the Netherlands (who I have praised elsewhere) is (was?) a great example of this. You’ll have dance clubs that will let white folks in, but if a Moroccan shows up they suddenly ask for them to show their membership card, a card that, of course, can’t be purchased then and there.
On the other hand, most Euro countries have cops that aren’t interested in playing no-strings attached murderball, unlike our cops.
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.
Final? She was always a shithead.
Dems agree that it was stupid??
My only reaction is something along the lines of finally being able to breathe a breath of slightly fresher air. She has been higher up on my list of Senators to remove than my own state’s crooks.
I’m sure all of opinions mean as much to this thread as they do to a dead body.
I might agree with the sentiment, but Hearst can eat a bag.
deleted by creator
On this day in 2023 Democrats celebrated by shitting all over the corpse of a colleague. I did not like Feinstein at all but the way she was treated during her decline was fucking deplorable.
She should have resigned long ago, and ejected if she had refused.
That is assuming that she had any agency left. I don’t think she did.
deleted by creator
She was treated that way because her decline shouldn’t have been happening while she was a U.S. fucking senator. We shouldn’t have people who can’t even pass the cognitive test Trump passed making our laws.
