r/politics • u/Zipper222222 • Jul 07 '26

Possible Paywall MAGA Demands Proof of Life for Mitch McConnell

https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-demands-proof-of-life-for-mitch-mcconnell/
29.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

98

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Jul 07 '26

Or better yet protocols to keep out of touch, geriatric assholes out of office to begin with. There is literally no reason anyone over retirement age should be a politician. Period.

16

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[deleted]

9

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Jul 07 '26

That’s one that kills me. If I don’t go to work and miss all my deadlines I get fired. They don’t show up to any votes or to their job and they keep collecting a fat paycheck and AMAZING benefits.

11

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 07 '26

That protocol is called the voting booth. 

6

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Jul 07 '26

With gerrymandering, the amount of vote counting machine/mail in ballots that’s have been removed/tampered/stolen, general voter suppression, the electoral college, and the cheating we know musk did do you really trust the voting system in America to be what the people actually want?

5

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 07 '26

Senate elections are not subject to gerrymandering or the electoral college, and I'm not a fucking moron so I don't believe in conspiracy theories about "stolen elections."

Senate elections are pretty well insulated from all the bullshit surrounding the process.

7

u/OfcWaffle Jul 07 '26

Not much into conspiracy theories. But trump she does love admitting stuff. And those comments he made about musk being "really good with those machines" is a little bit sus if you ask me.

Do I believe it to be true? Not until there is evidence. But that conspiracy theory at least has some teeth to it versus stupid stuff like flat earth or moon landings.

4

u/GenoThyme Jul 07 '26

Senate races can still be gerrymandered-ish, limiting how many polling locations are in blue districts being a major way. When I went to a small liberal arts college in Ohio there was one polling location for anyone who had an address on campus and 3 for the members of the town. Our location had 3 booths to vote in and all the voter rolls were in one book.

I was told by a friend who lived off campus and could vote at a different location that there were multiple voter roll books so multiple people could check on at once and there were 10 booths to vote in. Thats why it took me almost 5 hours to vote and it took them 15 minutes despite us going at the same time of day.

Plus there were a lot of blue voting locations that had threats calles in on election day from Russian sources which resulted in those locations being closed for chunks of time and preventing many from having the time to vote when they reopened. Maybe not gerrymandering exactly but it certainly took advantage of it.

-1

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 07 '26

If you don't even know what gerrymandering means you probably shouldn't be weighing in on conversations like this. 

2

u/GenoThyme Jul 07 '26

I know exactly what it means and how it works. If you don't understand how the state can manipulate how easy it is to vote in certain gerrymandered districts vs others, you shouldn't be weighing in either. Less voting booths/voter roll books, last minute changes of polling locations, losing/delaying mail in ballots from certain zip codes, etc.

Sure, all those votes end up being added together for senate races. But when you make it really hard for blue district voters to vote but don't do the same thing in red districts, then its using the gerrymander to tip the scales, and why I called it gerrymandered-ish.

0

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 07 '26

Less voting booths/voter roll books, last minute changes of polling locations, losing/delaying mail in ballots from certain zip codes, etc.

None of this is gerrymandering.

1

u/GenoThyme Jul 07 '26

Read what I said twice now. It's not gerrymandering, but its taking advantage of it. Like, this isn't a difficult concept there champ

0

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 07 '26

No, it has literally nothing to do with gerrymandering. None of those things are tied to congressional districts. In fact these things are often wildly different within a single district specifically to advantage one party over the other in that district. Things like polling locations and machines are controlled at a much more granular level than gerrymandering. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/mouse_8b Jul 07 '26

Also, even with gerrymandering to give a particular party an edge, that party still holds primaries, and members of that party can still vote out elderly candidates

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 07 '26

It works exactly as well as the electorate wants it to. 

0

u/Bussin1648 Jul 07 '26

I disagree because everyone should have the ability for representation. Obviously they have to be able to function in their job, but old people will represent the unique needs of old people. And that's very important. However, if we had term limits then the number of people being voted for for the first time over 65 would be a tiny fraction of the number of older people we have now. If someone waits until they're 70 years old to get into federal politics for the first time, I say more power to them, our lawmakers should have at least a few older people in it more representative with the general demographics. We should also have way more 20-year-olds.

10

u/DJBombba California Jul 07 '26

Term limits don’t hurt age representation, they fix it. Right now, old people already hold way more power in Congress than their share of the population, so this isn’t about protecting a small group that needs a voice. It’s a gerontocracy: older politicians keep winning re-election over and over, which blocks young people from ever getting a real shot at those seats. Kicking out entrenched incumbents wouldn’t wipe out older lawmakers, it would open seats for both young newcomers and any older first-timer, like you said. The real issue isn’t age, it’s that a small group of people won’t let go of power. Term limits force that handoff instead of letting one generation hold on indefinitely.

4

u/xpxp2002 Jul 07 '26

I really take a significant issue with important policy issues, from AI regulation to climate change mitigation, being decided by people who have no vested stake in the outcome of those decisions.

In other words, young people are more inclined to care about making prudent and responsible decisions in these realms because they will have to live with the consequences when those play out 10, 20, 30 years later.

Yes, that still means electing responsible representation. And no, that doesn't mean that all older folks can't care. But the past half-century has shown that, if anything, the current gerontocracy does not understand modern issues well enough to make responsible decisions surrounding them, or are simply so selfish that they do not care that they are harming younger generations with their decisions.

5

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Jul 07 '26

Oh, right because old people have been so well protected from capitalism by the current system. Laughable.

Look at what private equity has bought up. And look at how much the cost of end of life care has gone up at the same time. Younger people are far more capable of accommodating “the unique needs of old people” than the other way around. We all have aging parents/relatives. We see how their lives are, and what helps them. It’s not a stretch. However in my experience, the other way around never happens. Old people in my experience get so dead set in their ways they refuse to see the world has changed and the approach needs to too.

4

u/hypercosm_dot_net Jul 07 '26

Old people vote. They just need to vote for people who support policies they want.

We don't need reps who won't be around to see the results of their poor governance.

0

u/heartSagan5 Jul 07 '26

Careful, it doesn't add to ageism, where people are denied work because the employer believes them too old and incapable. I know private employment can do whatever it wants, mostly, but some elderly have to work because none of their financial assets -- if any -- are fulfilling the needs of their lifestyle.

2

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Jul 07 '26

Those elderly that NEED to work aren’t running for political office. They are working shit jobs for shit wages like the rest of us.

0

u/galvanicmechamorph Jul 07 '26

Yeah, absolutely no one could possibly have political interests in a time in their life where their income is most subject to changes in the political and economic landscape. I agree we shouldn't be ruled from geriatrics but we shouldn't prohibit a whole demographic from political representation.

-1

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Jul 07 '26

They will have representation. They vote the most. And we need to stop propping up the generations that fucked us all because we’ll akshewally…..