The polling showed that Fetterman was at +68 with Democrats in Pennsylvania back in 2023.
“He was a Democrat liberal darling,” Enten said.
That is no longer the case.
“Look at how low he has fallen, down to negative 40 points,” Enten said showing the new data. “He’s down there with the Titanic among Democrats in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Wtf poll covers more than 100 points?!
Wrong type of scale. it’s a way of conveying a 2 part question. Do you like him or dislike him? Ok, now how much do you like or dislike him?
This goes:
HATE -100…………….0…………….+100 LOVE
“He was a Democrat liberal darling,”
And then he suffered literal brain damage and has completely flipped his position on pretty much everything he previously stood for.
If you don’t believe that conservative ideas in general, and MAGA ideas in particular, take root in feeble minds, Fetternan is proof.
OK but have you ever met someone from Pennsylvania because it can get weird, maybe he’s just a representative. I had a lady introduce herself at an airport some months ago, within two sentences of telling me she was from PA, she was launching into an anti-abortion spiel. Nice lady. Nice people.
J/k but really you can’t judge him based on what Dems think, he’s not appealing to Dems. He’s appealing for the centrists and the right-wingers of PA who want to feel like they’re centrists. I hope he and the others who play these games get tossed out, but the wheels grind very fucking slow.
Fetterman’s brain is broken. He’s an embarrassment in more ways than one, and he needs to be put out to pasture asap.
Should have cognitive tests for campaigning or sitting members of government if they have a stroke. Guy had a stroke in 2022 got aphasia and then had severe depression in 2023. He was mid campaign when most of it happened so the Dems didn’t want to replace him as he had all the momentum against Oz.
I wish liberals would stop saying this. His brain didn’t break. The democrats got duped.
His career will continue with the republicans where he was always gravitating to. The “progressive” label was used just to get his big foot in the door. The Dems got duped.
It’s true, but his brain is broken also. Two things can be true at the same time.
Also, he’s unbelievably crass and disrespectful.
You might be right, maybe he was a chud all along, idk.
But c’mon, it’s obvious the stroke broke his brain. Before the stroke he was giving 10 minutes speeches from memory, after the stroke he can’t finish a sentence.
it’s both. his history shows the kind of liberal he was and he was never particularly progressive. he even avoided the term and disliked it lol. he got worse once elected though… nowadays he’s pathetically reprehensible as opposed to out of touch and middle of the road.
He should be running free, on a farm somewhere.
He’s one of the weak and slow. He’ll get eaten first.
“Well Timmy, He went to live on a farm upstate so he can live carefree and chase squirrels.”
I suspect he’s being blackmailed by trump and his gang of degenerates.
Congressmen (and women) should have a 2 year term limit max. Six years of doing whatever the hell he wants with no regard for his constituents is insane.
“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities - and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, […] you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders.
Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.
So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public.” – George Carlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBrbXOmnW70
You like many Americans are trying to solve cultural rot by putting in more rules. “If only we had a rule that ___” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s not going to solve this. Being a congress-person is a skill. It requires actual skill, and it takes time to get to know how to be most effective. You can put in this rule if you want, and it might solve the problem you’re targeting, but it will create many more. You can’t solve problems caused by cultural rot (literally tens of millions of voters being okay with this) by putting in more administrative rules. Ultimately , democracies grant the people the power to destroy democracy. That is what the US is choosing.
You like many Americans are trying to solve cultural rot by putting in more rules. “If only we had a rule that ___” this wouldn’t have happened.
That also doesn’t fix the problem of an administration that freely ignores the rules with complete impunity.
Being a congress-person is a skill. It requires actual skill
I could never tell by looking at them.
All I see is incompetents at best, and corrupt profiteers at worst. Often both.
Americans love rules. Now I live in England, which has more rules on paper, but where most rules are widely disregarded.
I visited friends near Bath last year and they decided to take me canal boating. They signed one form to rent the boat and then a guy came on board and taught us how to drive it. I didn’t sign anything. They didn’t check my license or sort out any insurance or anything. I drove it for over 3 hrs lol. I was thinking how much paperwork such a thing would take of this was in the US or Canada.
Not sure how big a canal boat is, but all it took was a small chunk of change and I was given a boat big enough to dent a cargo ship, near a major shipping channel. I told the fella renting the boat that I was going to teach my family/friends how to use it, and off we went! So, at the very least, the statement that it would take a bunch of paperwork over in the new world is not universally correct.
Thank you for putting into words what has seemed obvious to me for decades, but I don’t think I’ve ever put it quite this well.
I’m all for term limits, but 2 years is not nearly long enough to be effective in a job.
We have a lot of examples of state governments that have term limits. There’s no evidence that governance has been improved. The only thing that changes is that more power shifts to the civil servants, and to the party bureacrats who control the revolving door to the next position.
Term limits are the kind of solutions that you hear MAGAts proposing: if it begins with “Why don’t we just…” then it’s probably already been thought of, been tried, and has failed.
The only thing that changes is that more power shifts to the civil servants,
And most importantly, power shifts to the lobbyists who help advise on how to write the laws to maximally benefit their clients. It’s yet another carve out for billionaires and those who control extensive capital.
Well presumably he would be re-elected if he does what he has promised to do.
That’s not what term limit means. You must mean term length.
Thanks, yeah I think I kind of combined the 2 in my mind. Maybe something like 2 year term length with a maximum term limit of 6 years?
I’d be concerned that any politician who had to be reelected every two years would spend one year fundraising and another year campaigning for reelection, then repeat. Only the shortest and easiest of short-term goals would stand any chance of being achieved.
So in essence you want congressmen to have to campaign even more than they do now.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think that recalls would be much more effective.
Yeah that’s fair.
None of the top democracies have term limits for their representatives. Term limits do nothing to prevent people from electing shitheads.
They don’t know what “term limits” mean. They might not even know what the term means and just accidentally strung it together even:
should have a 2 year term limit max.
What they’re trying to complain about is the length of a term, not a limit to consecutive terms.
But like, best of luck explaining anything to them, every comment has multiple new things that need explained.
The US has term limits for its president.
…and isn’t a top democracy.
America, like most democratic countries, is not a democracy at all.
America is a constitutional republic with democratic representation.
Maybe in the broadest cynical sense, no. In this case though, Fetterman masqueraded a a democrat and completely changed his act once he got into office.
That’s just it, most off these guys don’t consider their voters to be constituents, only the billionaire class.
Congressmen (and women)
Pedantic and off topic, but it would have been a shit ton easier if we just add a masculine prefix (alternative to “wo”) and leave “man” as a gender neutral one since you and so.many others can’t accept the current set up.
Something extra douchey like “heman/hemen”, so that all the douches would eagerly use it.
And everyone can just go back to using “man” as a gender neutral option like most languages were built around.
So we could say “Congressmen” to describe humans in Congress.
Like, what are you even suggesting?
Congresswomen? “Congress women”? “Women who are in Congress”?
Do you understand why none of those make sense?
It’s because “congressmen” is already gender neutral.
“Mankind” literally includes everyone. Women, men, nonbinary, furries, saxophone players, your mother-in-law, literally every human
Why are you so hung up on genitals, that you insist they be brought up at every moment? How do you care enough to put that effort in, but never actually got pedantic enough to see what was correct?
Well at least with the Senate there’s a Latin suffix system that is oft forgotten, that being tor trix suffix. So a male Senate member is a senator and female member is a senatrix.
Even more pedantic and off-topic, but this is actually how the English language used to work. In Old English, “man” just referred to a person, whether they were male or female, adult or child. If you wanted to refer to an adult male specifically, you would say “were”, and an adult woman was a “wif”. Eventually, male defaultism shifted the language such that “man” referred to an adult male, and adult females were called “wifmen” to avoid confusion, which eventually evolved into “women”.
Incidentally, we still see “were” used in modern English as part of the construction of the world “werewolf”, literally meaning “man-wolf”.
but this is actually how the English language used to work. In Old English, “man” just referred to a person, whether they were male or female, adult or child.
It still does, and it makes no logical sense for ignorant people to keep trying to force a binary divide for a non-binary population.
Just use “man” for anyone, if someone’s demographic is ever relevant, that’s why we have adjectives in the first place.
It’s just weird when people have to shout:
And also people with vaginas!
Literally right after saying “everyone”. And it’s annoying because like most people who are the problem, they legitimately think they’re the ethical ones.
In Anglo-Saxon, “man” meant “person,” like Mensch in German still does.
“Woman” was “wyfman”-- female-human-person. And because sexism has ancient roots, the default gender assumption for a person was that they were male.
So it’s not quite as straightforward as you propose, and the gender-neutrality you mention wasn’t really all that wonderfully gender-neutral after all.
So how about this, based more on modern usage: “person” for a person, regardless of what their gender might be.
“Man” for those of male gender, however that gets socially assigned.
“Woman” for those of female gender, likewise.
And for all the edge and corner cases that make our world so richly diverse, well, we’ll need to figure those out too, hopefully without being oppressive about it.
Actually, no I don’t believe “congressmen” is gender neutral. Maybe I should have used “representatives” instead but there’s nothing wrong with being all inclusive.
Actually, no I don’t believe “congressmen” is gender neutral
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/congressman
a member of a congress
It doesn’t matter what you “believe”. “Beliefs” are just opinions that someone can’t defend logically.
You are wrong. And on some level you understand that or you’d come up with the femine version of “congress women” that doesn’t immediately make an English speaker recognize it as nonsensical.
It’s pattern recognition, not even conscious thought.
You not being able to admit you were wrong, is just tiresome honestly.
Sorry for English not being my first language I guess? Nice to see Lemmy has become as hostile as Reddit.
Also I can link the dictionary at you as well: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/congresswoman
Platforms don’t change people.
Right…
So you referred to two groups:
-
Everyone in Congress, literally all of them men, women, nonbinary, doesn’t matter
-
Also, women in Congress
And you’re acting smug, and like you’re somehow correct?
Sorry for English not being my first language
If someone corrects you, listen.
Get mad and slap fight and someone that actually understands this shit and has shown a willingness to help you…
Someone who has absolutely zero to gain from ever helping you…
Is probably just gonna help someone else instead
-
Omg dude the tears lol
