Senator John Kennedy froze and then properly zoned out—forcing Fox to cut the interview short.
“I know better than Jesus and truth is a popularity contest.”
He literally froze up when he got caught in the Christan Nationalist logical trap.
Literally got stuck in the loop when his lips said, “I’m sure Jesus loves them, but everybody else…”
The topic they were discussing was Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities.
And then these decrepit assholes wonder why we want mandatory retirement ages.
JOE BIDEN is OLD! THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
I hate this guy so fucking much
That’s insane to me that the Fox News host tried to pretend it was an issue with the mic. It’s so clear the mic was working fine, what the fuck. This is the kind of obvious propaganda that I’d expect from North Korea
Fox News is way better and more sophisticated as a propaganda machine than whatever NK has.
It’s one thing to brain wash people that have no access to education or outside sources it’s a completely different level to do it in a western country.
Not really. Is there much difference between no education and an American education?
It doesn’t really count if you just make up all the facts and history.
I often think about how many people I went to school with felt that high school was difficult. High school in America is a fucking joke. I understand that high school is difficult if you have a disability of some sort, and I even buy the cultural bias argument for standardized testing, but I went to high school in a lilly white suburb with lots of supposedly normative kids and some of them barely made it through graduation.
The American populace is chock full of idiots. Most of the people that even graduated high school here (which is not everyone) went on to never pick up another book again.
College too. I used to study in the business school beacuse it was new and the chairs were excellent. I’d frequently run into students doing the whole “Math is hard!” thing.
So I’d offer to help, super basic high school algebra type stuff.
I’d explain it and they’d go “Wow! You’re smart! What classes are you taking here?”
“Oh, I’m an English major, I’m just here because the chairs don’t suck.”
I mean… you were at the business college. You think maybe your sample is poisoned?
That’s what I was thinking… “These are the MBA students?” Followed by “Man, I picked the wrong major…”
At least when I was in school, Business Majors were for the kids who couldn’t hack it in a STEM degree.
licks lips like lizard
Edit:
They cut the video right before he started blinking horizontally.
Lizard brain kicked in when the rest of it checked out.
Damn, getting freaky on air, not a good look.
I will forever associate Foghorn Leghorn with reading about strap-ons, LOL.
I am so morbidly curious, please elaborate
Someone should write a book like this but have it feature all of these stupid fucking politicians. Have Trump go to town on Lindsey Graham, Epstein, and John Kennedy in it.
John Leghorn is now stuck in my mind, thank you :D
remain in office for far longer than they should, usually out of pride and denial.
These cunts keep getting elected.
Yes but do they? Republicans and Democrats have worked their ass off to insure millions of voters are disenfranchised
I’m curious to know how you feel the democrats have done this? Please be specific, and please have something more recent than Jim Crow.
I guess you have never heard of gerrymandering?
Kennedy is a Senator. Gerrymandering doesn’t apply to state-wide elections. Only congressional seats.
Not directly, but it does lower participation, especially for those against the House seats incumbent
That’s was just what popped into my head after reading that extremely out of touch comment. Go read up on voter disenfranchisement and incumbents
Are you assuming democrats have drawn new lines to prevent people from voting? Or, are they just trying to draw it back? Do you have any examples? Because you’re really sounding like you have very little evidence to support the claim that both sides are equally fucking over the voters. You’re sounding very MAGA right now.
There we go. Didn’t take along. Criticizing the Democrats does not make me a MAGA. This tribalism “you are with us or your against us” is how we got into this mess. It’s okay to demand better from your representatives
Not standing up to gerrymandering because it keeps your incumbents safe is the same as drawing the lines
I didn’t say you are, I said you sounded like one. But I can see that you don’t have any examples and you don’t know what you’re talking about. The vast majority of the shitty politicians are Republicans. You can try to both sides this all you want, you will continue to come up short just like you have
He’s the only name the voters recognize, probably.
Anyone who would oppose him doesn’t have the funding to force their name into everyone’s mouths.
You’re probably right, but I’m not sure this guy even knows his name at this point
running should only be allowed at an age less than that of retirement, and at federal minimum wage. want to fix issues for working class and elderly? Fix them while you’re in office while you are becoming too old to run again. Get the fucking zombies out of DC.
They should have term limits. Funny how they gave the president term limits but didn’t vote on ones for themselves.
They also vote on work requirements for things like health care benefits and then clock a zero hour day at their own fucking jobs.
Congress should have to work a standard forty hour work week to receive benefits and make time off requests like the rest of us.
I see this a lot but until you can get rid of money in politics all this policy does is shift power to lobbyists who are even less accountable, because they become the keepers of long-tenured institutional knowledge.
“funny” :)
I guess if we elect a bunch of socialist Democrats, we could get term limits for them too.
I mean. Yes. Everyone. Everyone and every project should have a sunset date / limit.
the minnimum wage thing only means that the people that go up for the job are the corrupt bastards cutting favors and deals.
yeah. not unlike the current era.
there are not-corrupt senators. There wouldn’t be if they couldn’t afford to live.
Sounds like a problem with minimum wage then
there is a problem with minimum wage, yes.
but you’re solution isn’t a solution. it will lead to the exact opposite of what you want. even more so than now.
Not if we start hanging those who take bribes. In fact, I’d argue that the reason for most of what’s happening right now is that politicians and the rich are not at all scared of being dragged out of their homes by an angry mob and hanged for their crimes against humanity. You can’t craft perfect anti-corruption laws. Making them fear retribution from the people would work better than any fine or potential jail term.
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!
Or … an example is made out of the corrupt ones, and laws change to ensure things improve.
Yes. We should have anti-corruption laws being reliably forced, and have anti-corruption laws strengthened.
that won’t happen if all the good ones leave because they can’t afford to live in DC.
We call that “pulling a Mitch”
“mitching off”
“What a Mitch!”
How many Republican Senators does it take to change a light bulb? Zero. Trump says he changed it and they all clap in the dark.
gonna fix that for you…
how many Republican Senators does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one. But Trump has told them he already changed it and they applaud him in the dark.
What did you fix? 🤣
Are you one of those reddit grammar nazis or a newer lemmy one?
Nope. I answered the question- just one- but that they won’t because they believe trump took care of it. (IMO it’s more damning that way.)
Fuck me, I wouldn’t let this guy be a night manager of a place that closed in the evening.
I used to think an upper age limit for serving in government was agist and would mean a large chunk of the population without representation by their peers. I worried how poorly they might be treated without representation.
But I don’t think it could be any worse than they’re treated with how poorly their peers are doing currently.
The weird part is 73 isn’t really all that old for some of these fuckers…
Kennedy isn’t even in the top 20. Fully 1/5th of the Senate is older than 73(!)
Iowa - Chuck Grassley - 91
Kentucky - Mitch McConnell - 83
Vermont - Bernie Sanders - 83
Idaho - Jim Risch - 82
Maine - Angus King - 81
Illinois - Dick Durbin - 80
Connecticut - Richard Blumenthal - 79
Massachusetts - Ed Markey - 79
New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - 78
Hawaii - Mazie Hirono - 77
Massachusetts - Elizabeth Warren - 76
Oregon - Ron Wyden - 76
Rhode Island - Jack Reed - 75
Arkansas - John Boozman 74
Idaho - Mike Crapo - 74
Mississippi - Roger Wicker - 74
Nebraska - Deb Fischer - 74
New York - Chuck Schumer - 74
Washington - Patty Murray - 74
West Virginia - Jim Justice - 74
Colorado - John Hickenlooper - 73
Louisiana - John Kennedy - 73
Tennessee - Marsha Blackburn - 73
Texas - John Cornyn - 73
Wyoming - John Barraso - 73I have yet to meet someone in their eighties that isn’t mentally slipping. I have certainly never met someone in their 90’s that wasn’t a shadow of their former self.
Term limits would be a great starting point.
I’ve known people in that age that are mentally intact. There’s been a few celebrities that seem intact even into their 90s like Dick Van Dyke or Betty White. There was a guy at worked I only communicated with by text and assumed he was my age as we worked on an issue. Turned out he was 84. It was announced that he was leaving and I assumed he was going to retire, but no, he got a job elsewhere for a raise…
Certainly that video featured a man far more deteriorated than most anyone I’ve known in their 70s.
Problem is mostly the voters voting for a letter (R or D) and frequently not even paying attention to the specific person.
I work with elderly people and have known quite a few that were sharp as ever well into their eighties, but when their minds go it happens extremely quickly. At the very least there needs to be mandatory cognitive tests to run and serve after a certain age.
I tend to forget Bernie’s age.
Dolla dolla bill
If an upper limit is ageist, then so is a lower limit. But you wouldn’t think that having a 14 yo in office is a prudent thing. You probably never balked at the 30 yo limit for senate.
Those are very different things, though. I’d be okay with lowering the age limit for things, depending on the age we are talking about. Definitely would want people past the PFC stage (around 25).
They’re not different things though. The only difference between one arbitrarily established limit and the other is that you think it’s okay to shit on younger people.
They’re both extremely arbitrary limits based on some expectation that a 29yo is unable to be a reasoning, empathic human being but a 30yo can. It’s not even based on medical science. It’s based on a cultural belief that old people are somehow wiser and more experienced.
Oh, and since you brought up the development of the prefrontal cortex, the human brain begins to show signs of deterioration as early as the thirties. with cognitive declines related to aging becoming pronounced and obvious around the sixties. so fuck off with that.
a kind, empathetic and compassionate 20 year old is going to be a better congress person than a 50 year old whose not.
Oh, and by the way, a person born in 1945… half of their experience predates the modern world, and the quality of one’s experience is far more important than the extent of that experience. (for reference, such a person would be 80 years today, and would have been 46 when the first webpage went live. they would have been 58 when MySpace went live.)
the majority of their experience applies to a world that no longer exists. In every way relevant to modern governance, their preconceptions and understanding of the world is- generally- a world that is gone.
This is why so many of them believe that young families can afford a house on a single income if they just went and got a fucking job. Because they could and did.
There are exceptions to this, so don’t even bother listing them. I don’t care. Because any hard limit you set is not going to fucking care. and all of that brings us back to… both limits are either aegist, or not aegist.
I don’t care if it is aegist. There’s good reasons to have both limitations.
And lets be clear, you’re worried about a 24 yo going off and starting a war because their brain is underdeveloped, but ignoring that a person with dementia is a paranoid fucker, and makes that 24yo look positively saintly.
Whoa. I think there is some amount of wisdom and experience people acquire and giving them until 25 to get that PFC thing going makes some sense.
I also said elsewhere in this thread that I think cognitive tests would be reasonable.
I don’t think lower age limits and upper age limits are the same thing at all. I suppose if people want to put it to voters, people could work on updating the Constitution to lower age limits to 20 or whatever for Senate, House and the WH and then let voters decide. I just don’t think it’s the main concern (or even a real concern at all) when it comes to our broken system, although I know it’s quite fashionable to blame older people for all the problems…I’d say the problem is making money = free speech and allowing legal bribery.
Having younger people being bribed vs. older people and having term limits on those younger people is supposedly going to accomplish something, but I’m not really sure what.
Having younger people being bribed vs. older people and having term limits on those younger people is supposedly going to accomplish something, but I’m not really sure what.
age has nothing to do with being bribed. that’s a distraction.
As for wisdom, age has little to do with that, too.
do you really want me to list all the fucking stupid, unwise, and vile policies being pushed by mostly-old-people, who’ve stopped giving a fuck about their legacy because they already got theirs and pulled the ladder up?
Edit: Again: the only functional difference is that you think it’s appropriate to shit on younger people. That’s it. Every medical justification you use to do so… can be applied to anyone over 30, and especially anyone over 60. Any justification about “experience” can be ignored since most of that doesn’t even apply to the modern world.
You act as if they would suddenly lose representation. Which is not true any more than anyone under 30 is not already represented.
There is no legitimate argument you can make that justifies one but not the other. None.
The problem isn’t old people in office. I’ve known a lot of 80 year olds who are still with it mentally, and while they are slower physically they make up for it with their experience and wisdom.
But the problem is that not all older people are like this, so it’s generally up to the politician themselves to decide when they’re too old for it, and many of these people have egos which might prevent them from stepping back, ever. Combine this with the fact that the vast majority of seats are safe for one party or the other, and candidates are discouraged from running against incumbents in primaries, and someone who wins a Congressional seat at 40 or 50 can keep it for 30 (even 40) years, without having to face any meaningful opposition.
So, maybe we shouldn’t have an upper age limit. However, we should take the stigma away from having a primary challenge. Every Federal election should have a meaningful primary. Does an 80 year old want to keep his seat? They should have to debate someone half their age, and perform well, to keep it. Nothing should be taken for granted.
The problem isn’t old people in office. I’ve known a lot of 80 year olds who are still with it mentally, and while they are slower physically they make up for it with their experience and wisdom.
And I’ve known a lot of very wise 12 yo’s in my time. Should we start letting 12yo’s run for office? what about 22 yo’s? what about a 32 yo president?
for someone whose 80, over half of their experience does not apply to the world we currently live in, anyway.
But half of their experience does, and the other half does give them context. (I would personally like it if more people in office today could remember what it was like to have fo fight in a war against fascists.) If they can offer a better vision than other candidates, and their voters are fully informed about their choices, I have no problem if voters send them back.
The problem comes when districts are manipulated to the point where the general election isn’t competitive, and primaries against incumbents are also discouraged. That guarantees that if someone wins an election once, they can hold on to the seat as long as they want to, well past the point where they are relevant, because they will never have to face a contested election again. That’s the real problem.
The context the irrelevant stuff offers…
…Does it tell them millennials are lazy because they can’t afford to have a family and own a house on a single income?
(Yes it does.)
…Does it tell them that being LGBTQ+ is wrong, immoral, and they should not have equal rights?
(Yes. It does)
…Has the experience of fighting fascists in a war stopped them from being fascist, or from supporting genocide?
(No. It does not.)
Now who’s stereotyping based on age?
You can’t assume that everyone who is 80+ holds these views, but if that person wants to run for office and represent you, then you absolutely have the right to ask them, and withhold your vote if they don’t answer to your liking.
The problem is that there are no alternatives. That person can be blatant in their suckitude, and you have no other option, within the party or outside of it. People like this keep getting elected because the system is stacked towards incumbency. Once you get the gig in a safe district, it is basically a life appointment. It was never meant to be that way.
You can’t assume that everyone who is 80+ holds these views, but if that person wants to run for office and represent you, then you absolutely have the right to ask them, and withhold your vote if they don’t answer to your liking.
Did I say that? You are putting words into my mouth.
They are, however common views, and serve as an excellent example of how that “context” isn’t always a good thing.
If you’re gonna sit there and say anyone under x age is immature - and that’s exactly what you’re saying- then I get to say anyone over y age is decrepit.
And i think you understand that point. It doesn’t matter if it’s universally true- it’s true enough, on both sides the issue.
I like the idea of primaries. As to debates, though - the way they are conducted (in the United States anyway) seems to be very problematic - comes down to quips and comebacks, talking over one another, going over allotted time, not really answering the questions and using prepared sound bites, and trying to go viral, all while lots and lots of logical fallacies are employed, and a populace that judges on the most arbitrary aspects of all this hot mess, such as who appeared to dominate or came off “strong”, etc.
I wonder if there is some other way(s) to have candidates express their platforms during primaries. I honestly don’t have a great answer for this. I suppose it still comes back to a rather tuned-out and generally clueless populace that will decide things largely based on “vibes” anyway…
I honestly don’t have a great answer for this.
Town halls work. Speeches, work. meeting with constituents in any of a dozen formats… works. hell, even an AMA somewhere.
Personally, we should replace debates with MarioKart64 competitions.
It’s fine to post an upper limit because, surprise surprise, time marches on and everyone will(hopefully) grow old. You’re not gunna blow up your own retirement plan but you might pull that ladder up behind you.
The elderly have proven time and time again that basically none of them can do their jobs properly, and many of them should probably be in at least assisted living and not running the country.
The host knows this is a video right? We can see the senator’s lips not moving. It’s not an issue with the mic 🤣
He totally knows. He’s just trying to cover for the guy
I think the host was referring to a technical difficulty in the old man’s brain function
Kennedy: I’m sure Jesus loves him, but …
Jesus: STFU *hits mute*
Keep my name out your mouth. - Jesus
