this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
292 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4329 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
 

Senate Republicans are starting to turn on Tommy Tuberville over his blockade of military promotions.

The Senate brought 61 individual nominees to the floor for a vote Wednesday night. Tuberville objected to all of them, tanking each officer’s promotion. He has repeatedly insisted that his blockade, a protest of the Department of Defense’s abortion policy, does not harm military readiness.

But his Republican colleagues were finally sick of hearing it. “No offense, but that’s just ridiculous,” Senator Dan Sullivan said. “He knows it. We all know it.”

Sullivan revealed that the military expects Tuberville’s blockade to affect 89 percent of all general officer positions, across all branches.

“Xi Jinping is loving this. So is Putin,” Sullivan said, referring to the presidents of China and Russia. “How dumb can we be, man?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Now, see, I'm really glad you brought up Fetterman. Not just because I love the guy, but because he is a fantastic example of how quickly and effectively the Senate can legislate when there is a political will, like Fetterman's personal sartorial choices.

It's late September, 2023. Fetterman has been wearing casual clothing to work since his release from the hospital for depression, and his party is cool with it, even moving to relax the unofficial Senate dress code for him . . . but then Fetterman ends up leading the Senate for a hot minute in a short-sleeved shirt. Hundreds of military promotions have lingered untouched and frozen for months, Ukraine is desperately waiting for US aid, the entire US government is teetering on the brink of a GOP-led shutdown, but Fetterman presides over the Senate in a short-sleeved shirt and within a SINGLE WEEK the Senate has a new dress code, physically enforced by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Forty-six Republican senators (all but three) sent a letter to Schumer demanding he reverse the change, writing, "The world watches us on that floor and we must protect the sanctity of that place at all costs." That prompted West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Utah Republican Mitt Romney to introduce a resolution earlier this week that would formally instate an enforceable dress code for the Senate floor. The SHORTS Act ("SHow Our Respect To the Senate," according to Politico) requires business attire, specifying "a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants" for men. It doesn't say anything about women.

Funny, but for as clearly as I recall so many Senate votes over the years, I don't remember a fucking thing these people have ever worn. If the GOP had a fraction of as much concern for their constituents and their jobs as they do about their clothing, this country would be entirely different today.

TL;DR: The Senate can do things with amazing effectiveness and rapidity when they want to. But when it comes to our military and ensuring its competent leadership by allowing posts to be filled and promotions to take place as needed, they just don't fucking feel like it.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am in agreement with everything you wrote here.

But I only brought Fetterman into this because the guy I was replying to wanted "the biggest guy in the room" to punch Coach repeatedly. And I think it's well known that Fetterman is the biggest guy in that chamber.

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

Yeah, I was piggybacking on your comment. Apologies for the distraction.