Skip Navigation

McConnell’s freezes complicate Republican attacks on Biden’s age

Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell struck up a friendship during their nearly quarter-century in the Senate together. Now in their 80s, the Democratic president and the Senate GOP leader appear to be giving political cover to each other as they fend off questions about their advanced age and health issues.

Notably, McConnell, R-Ky., 81, hasn’t joined Donald Trump, 77, and other Republicans who have attacked Biden’s age, health and mental acuity as he seeks re-election.

And after McConnell’s second freeze-up last week, Biden was one of the first to call McConnell, telling reporters that his “friend” sounded like “his old self” and that such episodes are a “part of his recovery” from a fall and a concussion this year.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
186 comments
  • We've had an imperial presidency since at least bush. If you'd cared enough to pay attention recently, you'd know that legal precedent has already occurred to give the president almost any power they want.

    Calling that Trumpian either shows your age, or how long you've cared about this.

    Incrementalism is an intentional tactic used by liberals to explain why they can't undo the things the right wing does, and to explain why they can't change things themselves when they are in power.

    Liberalism is a fucking disease.

    EDIT: Congress sure as shit wasn't required to fuck over all the air traffic controllers. Funny that. Congress is never required to fuck over workers, but it is always an excuse as to why we can't do things for the workers.

    • "imperial presidency" is not a phrase with any meaning. Imperialism isn't "shit I don't like."

      In this case, Congress is literally the authoring body of the contract's binding legislation.

      https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill

      Consider knowing what you're talking about before getting mad about it.

      • The precedent had been set that the US president can assassinate US Citizens without trial or judicial overview, right?

        You know who set that precedent, right? That it wasn't Trump, and there was no talk of impeaching the president that set that precedent, right?

        We have a fucking imperialist presidency for the same reason people hated Trump (not a fan, or a right winger, before you accuse me of that.) People hated Trump for violating the norms of the office. Most of the powers Presidents have now are based on executive orders and precedent from previous presidents, not, you know, by actual laws. I am exaggerating for effect here somewhat, but not a lot. But violating norms is not a crime, especially when you don't have clear laws delineating what a president can and can't do. And it apparently isn't a broken norm to assassinate US citizens without a trial. I don't know how you don't consider that an imperial presidency. Or, you're just younger then 40 and haven't been paying attention.

        If norms are all that define a position, and you have one side breaking the norms, and the other side following them and whining to a non-existent hall monitor that the other side is breaking, not the rules but the norms, then you get what we have now.

        Justifying Democratic presidents not using power they absolutely have because of subsection 6 of paragraph 5 is just a self righteous way to justify why they didn't fight for you when the time came.

        • president assassinate us citizens

          A drone strike against a terrorist group is both legal and not an assassination. They didn't isolate that one guy. He was killed while doing terrorist shit with a terrorist group, and the entire group was killed.

          Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011, airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

          In other words, legal. Don't join Al Qaeda if you don't want to be hit by a drone.

          Imperialism isn't "violating the norms of office" any more than it is "shit you personally don't like," and the above is not a violation of the norms of office, but rather something the President was given power to do by Congress, twice by that point.

          I'm not sure what you wanted Biden to do here when he accomplished his goal without overstepping the bounds of his office, per the union that asked for help.

          • I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about his two children. Whom were absolutely not members of Al-Qaeda.

            Remember, under Obama, the definition of being a terrorist was that you were male, over 14, and you were killed by the U.S.
            Being a civilian in the Afghan/Yemen war was a privilege only women were afforded.

            Finally, it wasn't Al-Qaeda. I will excuse this one, because you wouldn't know it based on US reporting unless you specifically interested in the Yemeni conflict. The genocide we assisted in perpetrating in Yemen against the people of Yemen who would not/did not ally themselves, and never would with Al-Qaeda for religious reasons. The US did what it did in Yemen under the auspices of the AUMF. Which has, as the one limiting factor, that force be used against countries with an Al-Qaeda presence. Nevermind that they were the ones we were arming and backing in Syria. Nevermind that they didn't REALLY exist in Yemen, and the few that did were imported by 'us' (Saudi Arabia, not the US), and the houthi did fight quite hard against them, and certainly not in the area this individual was killed. Nevermind that the Yemeni 'Government' that was forced in by Saudi Arabia was not accepted as the legit government of the majority of the Yemeni people (hence the reason for the 'civil war'. We had to say they did to give the assistance that Saudi Arabia was demanding. The Yemeni 'government' was literally of puppet of Saudi Arabia that any sane person wouldn't listen to. They accused everyone of being Al-Qaeda because, as puppets of Saudi Arabia, they had explicit instructions on what to say to allow the US to continue supporting their puppet regime. You won't find this in the wikipedia article, by the by, this actually required some thought, analysis, and paying attention to the situation when it was happening.

            And no, it was not approved twice by congress. Unless you are again counting the AUMF. which seems a pretty big stretch. That law wasn't written addressing the assassination of US citizens, does not explicitly state anywhere that it can be used for those purposes. Instead, Obama used the law in a way it was written to do something he wanted to do. I.E. he used powers not explicitly given to him to accomplish his goals. Huh. Imagine if his goals were to help workers.

            Give me a definition of imperial that we don't fit then. I'm sure I'll enjoy the internal inconsistencies in the definition you give.

            I want Biden to use power to help the people, and not the financier owners of the rail companies that exist to siphon of America's productivity like parasites. Because, frankly, there are far less bounds of the office than you are implying. This appeal to notional bounds is what Democrats always do to justify their feckless helplessness when it comes to helping their constituency.

            Fuck, you're the definition of 'Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.'

186 comments