this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
152 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3585 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Have we entered the twilight zone?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BruceCampbellschin@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Low blood sugar. 100%. Get that man a Snickers stat and he'll be back to his sex trafficking, child raping self.

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The stocks thing isn't new. He, AOC and others actually co-sponsored a bill banning members of Congress from owning individual stocks.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matt-gaetz-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-congress-stock-ban-bill/

[–] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Watch Gaetz run for governor (and then president?). Run, Gaetz, run. Most old school Regan Republicans would never go for this stuff. Limiting their own terms? Banning donations from lobbyists? Limiting SCOTUS terms and risk losing the theocratic supermajority? Gudouttahere.

Gaetz knows this. He also knows the establishment right wing media (Fox) is trying to make him the villain, "It's not that Republicans can't govern, it's just that this one guy is an asshole."

When Gaetz does shit like this, it makes him sound almost reasonable, right? Republican voters say, ok I think all that stuff would be good, so why won't the rest of the party go along with it? Hmm, maybe Gaetz is right about House Republicans being part of the swamp. Maybe Gaetz is a true fighter for America and not the asshole that blonde lady on Fox said he was.

That's the game. Gaetz is building some serious media coverage and name ID. I have to admit, the shit heal is making the most out of his time in the spotlight.

[–] FriendOfElphaba@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

shit heal

Chaotic evil clerics are the worst.

[–] KnowledgeableNip@leminal.space 15 points 1 year ago

+16 HP

-100 Dignity

[–] teft@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

Fucking Sharrans.

[–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you watch the footage of Gaetz grilling the DEA on when were they going to delist marijuana as a schedule 1 drug and federally decriminalize it specifically addressing opioid crisis and THC being a viable alternative for pain management for many?

I totally agree with you. I was initially very confused, but it definitely diferentiates him from DeSantis.

What's next? He turns on Trump?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

He takes off his mask and your realize it was Santos all along

[–] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This….sounds…reasonable..? I’m with OP - confused

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like, I'm expecting to find out all his accounts have been hacked or Bernie Sanders has a gun to his head or something

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

He's playing Fox New's game against them. GOP and their media outlets want to make him him the bad guy for canning one of their own.

So he's getting out ahead of it and saying all this stuff he knows Republican voters will agree so anyone who tries to smear him looks like deep state establishment that are entrenched in Washingtons ways. Not that he probably expects it to pass but it will give him a leg up if or rather when he tries to get Florida Governor in 2026 sincr DeSantis can't run again due to term limits.

[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Same dude.. I can’t figure out what he stands to gain other than just being contrarian. I never thought I’d say this but I’m actually agreeing with something that representative butthead said. Strange times we live in.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah. a tad shocking... like, whats the angle here? guess we will see what shakes out.

[–] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gaetz is trying to raise his own profile and is only in this for himself. Basically the attention economy. Which he is getting plenty of by ousting the Speaker. Older politicians are facing more scrutiny and passing a term limits law would look good right now. He may be positioning himself to run for Florida governor in '26. Which means most of the stuff in Khanna's reforms wouldn't hurt him if he runs for state office.

I'm all for term limits and if by some weird chance Gaetz being his prick self gets it passed, then sure why not. However, I really doubt a bill like that would get passed by a republican controlled house.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

appreciate the considered reply. 👍

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Motion to Vacate is now what I'm calling my morning poo.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Matt Gaetz is what I call my morning poo.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

At least you aren't calling it Santorum.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Right??

Noted MAGA Republican Matt Gaetz, who just ousted Conservative Speaker for daring to work with Democrats, is now demanding...

  • Ban money from lobbyists and political actions committees to congressional candidates

  • Ban members of Congress from trading stocks and from ever becoming lobbyists

  • Term limits for members of Congress

  • Term limits for Supreme Court justices

  • An ethics code for Supreme Court justices

What in the actual fuck?

[–] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Listed out like that, it’s not completely out of left field. The MAGA wing has been advocating for a few of those items on the list. It’s just bizarre that it’s being brought up as a bargaining chip /now/. You know - after obliterating the last R that worked with Dems. Like…what…?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

he's running the populist playbook.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 5 points 1 year ago

Populism over party has a few positives. These are the sort of things Trump advocated for in his campaign that got him so much support on the right and from people who traditionally we're "fed up" with politics in America.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

His biggest rivals in the house right now are senior GOP members, not Dems. So if he can use the Dems to force his rivals out of office... well it just looks good for him.

[–] ninekeysdown@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day or something like that… still feel really awkward when I find myself agreeing with him. He’s gotta a couple of other things right too. Don’t like the man at all but I can give credit where/when it’s due.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

The irony here is Gaetz and several other junior GOP members have pissed off the GOP seniority. So they are going to shut him down at every turn while he is trying to build steam and reputation for a '26 governor run in Florida.

So with GOP leadership locking him out, he needs to do the cardinal GOP sin of working with Democrats and actually legislate and govern to get his name on anything, and if he somehow gets term limits passed then suddenly a lot of that GOP leadership trying to control him suddenly will be out of office after 2024 and then he can really pander to his GOP base.

[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

But he rapes more than he saves

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If he knows he's toast with the GOP & is defecting, we don't want him.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Hes not defecting hes just taking advantage of the chaos. If he can term limits put through then suddenly about half or more of thr GOP in the house are not eligible to run in 2024 and he suddenly gets to be in a position of seniority and will use that freedom to prep for a 2026 Florida Governor election

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  • Good and necessary, doable. But it might get struck down since the courts seem to think money = the most important form of protected speech.

  • Good, necessary, and doable.

  • I don't personally think this is actually a good thing, but that's debatable. However, it requires a Constitutional amendment to do, not just legislation.

  • Requires a Constitutional amendment to do, not just legislation.

  • Good, necessary, but the Supreme Court is very likely to just ignore it, rule Congress doesn't have the power, etc

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Suddenly, I'm uncomfortable with liking something this guy wants. Sure let's have these incredibly populist reforms, but I sure as shit won't be giving Gaetz any credit for them if they happen.

[–] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

It sounds like they are more likely to support the motion-to-vacate Gaetz from Congress by expelling him at this point.

[–] fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would he support raising the age of consent in Florida?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure he knows that even exists

[–] Hello_there@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Term limits would just add more power to lobbyists

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you explain why? I have a vague idea of why you would say that but can you help me clarify why term limits would empower lobiests?

[–] Hello_there@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

What we have seen in state legislatures with short term limits is that new officials come in and they need some help figuring things out. Whereas before you'd have qp year veteran lawmakers to partner with or etc., now the only people that have been around long enough to actually know how to get things done are the under staff and the lobbyists.
As an example, the Senate has a bunch of arcane rules that you have to know how to manipulate to be able to exert leverage. Now, we have Schumer and Turtle, who knows how to use those levers. However, if we had term limits, I doubt they would be able to operate those levers as effectively. But the lobbyist who has been there and watched things for 20 years will still know.
Also, there's a reason this is coming from Gaetz, and it's because someone is bankrolling him to support this. We all know he has no principles.
Tldr: I'd rather keep the power in hands of an elected official than in the hands of unelected corporate lobbyists. We all know corporations practically run the country right now, why give more power?

[–] BaroqueInMind@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they know they are going to get fired, they will maximize the amount of money they can get paid by greasing as many hands as possible before they are kicked out.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If they know they're going to be a Congress member for life... they're also going to maximize the amount of money they can get paid lol

[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is a very good counterpoint imo. I know it’s a bit of a slippery slope argument, but thinking about this as an “in for a penny, in for a pound” kind of scenario really does empirically align with human nature. If you’re willing to sell out for something comparably small at the start, you’ll think less of it next time your donors ask for more, and it goes on and on with no end in sight.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The plan would seek to enact term limits for Congress members and Supreme Court judges, ban congressional stock trading, create a judicial code of ethics for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices, and prohibit candidates running for federal office from accepting donations from lobbyists or political action committees.

You can only do that by constitutional amendment.

[–] FriendOfElphaba@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m not familiar with a constitutional ban on term limits, and the idea has been floated by people at fairly high levels. Where do you think the restriction is, and do you think any limits could apply to new justices even if the currents are grandfathered in?

[–] AssPennies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not the term limits, the donations. The supreme court already rule via Citizens United that money is free speech, which is how PACs and dark money became legal. So to undo that, either the court has to reverse it (yeah right), or there has to be a constitutional amendment (which even the SC can't overturn).

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

which even the SC can’t overturn

Technically they can by using torturous logic, but then they'd swiftly be impeached.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Article 3, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Unlike for President, Senators, and Representatives, no term is given for Federal Judges, which includes the Supreme Court Justices. They "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Once a Federal Judge, always a Federal Judge.

[–] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m neither a lawyer nor scholar but that wouldn’t seem to preclude term limits or explicitly establish lifetime appointments.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Justices hold it during good behavior, not time limited per the Constitution.

As for members of Congress, a term limit would essentially be adding another qualification to those required by the Constitution.

The Constitutional requirements to be a Representative are:

  • at least 25 years of age; (Article I section 2)
  • a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to being elected; (Article I section 2)
  • a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent; (Article I section 2)
  • not having taken part in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath of federal or state office(14th Amendment)

Term limits would add on another restriction, disqualifying those who'd already served the term. Thus, unconstitutional.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›