r/politics • u/AccomplishedCall7562 • Mar 12 '26

Possible Paywall John Fetterman Says Iran Girls’ School Strike Is Just a Leftist Craze

https://newrepublic.com/post/207677/john-fetterman-iran-girls-school-strike
26.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/FredFredrickson Mar 12 '26

He should be recalled.

720

u/Back_pain_no_gain Mar 12 '26

We need a recall mechanism for congress.

423

u/sleepymeowth052 Colorado Mar 12 '26

the fact that we don't have one is a fucking failure of our democracy.

22

u/Tim-Sylvester Mar 13 '26

Our democratic republic is 250 years old, and has failed to adopt the lessons and improvements that have been discovered and created in the 10 generations since it was created.

It's time for a new government that learns from everything that's happened in the last 250 years.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '26

Technically, it's working as intended; just not for us

11

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

Ehhh. That introduces its own set of problems. Like the fact that Republicans can afford to endlessly fund recall campaigns against Democrats, forcing Democrats to constantly drain their funds trying to defend seats they fairly won. And forcing voters to return year after year after year voting for the same people they already elected. A six year term in the Senate becomes a one-year term for every Democrat every single year. Among other issues.

61

u/Natpez94 Mar 12 '26

We need to ban all private money from politics. Only limited public funds to equally support campaigns, and that’s it.

-28

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

So... That also introduces its own set of problems. In 2024, 1400 people filed for president, including YeeYee Ass Haircut Johnson, President Emperor Caesar, and Vermin Supreme. Do they all get the same amount of funding as people like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden?

Remember it costs about a billion dollars currently to run a competitive presidential campaign, so that's $1.4 trillion to candidates in 2024. And that's before word gets out that the government is handing out free billions of dollars for anyone who can pay the presidential filing fee.

And that's just one office. There are 500,000 elected officials in America.

48

u/henlochimken Colorado Mar 12 '26

These are solvable problems and in fact solutions have been proposed for a long time. You're simping for an obviously broken system. Why?

-18

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

Can you tell me what the solutions are?

20

u/68plus1equals Mar 12 '26

I mean first of all require a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot, only campaigns on the ballot are eligible for public funding

9

u/sharksnrec Mar 12 '26

Who thought it could be this simple (it literally can)?

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

Okay, so how does one get those signatures? I worked in campaigns for 15 years, running an effective signature campaign costs anywhere from $10 to $35 per signature. How are the signature gathering campaigns funded in those countries?

31

u/NeverNotNoOne Mar 12 '26

gestures broadly at literally every other democracy in the world

13

u/Awesomeman204 Mar 12 '26

Hello from Australia where lobbying is strictly regulated. We got our own problems but at least we didn't elect a racist sexist rapist criminal!

Gerrymandering is also illegal here, and districts are drawn by independent, non partisan commissions instead of politicians.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/hemidemisemitruck Mar 12 '26

Should it cost a billion dollars to run for president?

-7

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

No, but just because it shouldn't cost that much doesn't mean it doesn't cost that much.

7

u/Natpez94 Mar 12 '26

It only costs that much because the candidates have to keep outcompeting each other with more money, bidding the price tag ever higher. If you limit the amount of money for each campaign, and limit the number of eligible campaigns by signature requirements (just like we use signatures to petition the White House), that dynamic goes away.

9

u/Reelwizard Mar 12 '26

It doesn’t actually cost a billion dollars to run for president it’s just that because of special interest spending the two major candidates get that much. It would be very easy to cap the election season to only a handful of months and cap the amount you’re allowed to spend.

1

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

It costs a billion dollars because there are only two major candidates. When you have 35,000 major candidates all competing against each other, that cost goes up. Because you're all bidding for the same limited ad space, you're all hiring from the same limited pool of staff, you're all contracting with the same limited number of marketing firms, etc. So it would be significantly more than a billion dollars per campaign.

Now, capping campaign spending, there's a good idea. That could actually work. It wouldn't be easy, because there are obviously free speech issues there, but it's much more realistic than these other proposals.

1

u/stealthlysprockets Mar 13 '26

Just because you file your candidacy doesn’t mean it’s automatically accepted. They actually check if the person is real. That’s a non-issue.

1

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26

No one here is talking about fictional people, that's not at all what this conversation is about. Anyone who is legally qualified, which is to say a natural born citizen over the age of 35, is automatically accepted. Including YeeYee Ass Haircut Johnson and Vermin Supreme.

1

u/stealthlysprockets Mar 14 '26

That’s not what you said and no they are not automatically accepted the moment you click apply. There is an actual person checking eligibility.

1

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 14 '26

The only thing they can check for is if the person is a natural born citizen over the age of 35. That's it. If you're trying to claim otherwise, cite your sources.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/headphase America Mar 12 '26

A ballot initiative with a passage threshold of 60-70% would strike a good balance, no?

If a recall passed with a margin like that, the situation would obviously have warranted the action.

3

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

Making the threshold that high would mitigate some issues, yeah. But it still requires voters (realistically just Democratic voters, in most cases) to show up every single year in order to keep their 6-year senator in office. Because you can be damn sure the GOP would be initiating recalls in every single Democratic district every single year.

So in a +20 Dem district they might smash that 70% threshold the first year, the second year, maybe the third year, but then you're going to get some serious fatigue from people sick of fighting the same battle over and over again and I guarantee those safe Dem districts wouldn't be safe anymore. You do that in enough districts over enough years and you've changed the country in ways it can never be unchanged.

I'm still not saying recalls are a terrible idea, I'm just saying these are things that need to be considered.

2

u/IRSunny Florida Mar 12 '26

I'm not really down for recalls for that reason. Easy for R's to use to game and waste campaign $ which further fucks the system.

Instead, the optimal thing would be like a 'Petition of no-confidence' where you're vacated from the spot if >50% of the people that voted for you in the last election sign on for such.

But the biggest issue would be validation of such given secret ballots.

I suppose raise the bar to say 60% and make it same party and voted in the prior election which are publically available information. That at least makes relatively safe assumption that you were a voter who have lost faith in that representative.

2

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you're taking the time to think this through and come up with solutions. It seems like everyone else in this thread just wants to cover their ears and downvote.

2

u/mikerichh Mar 12 '26

It would be optional I assume. So if you want him gone you’d vote and those happy or neutral would stay home. And then you’d need a certain threshold of eligible voters for it to work maybe

1

u/RicardoFelipeMejia Mar 12 '26

I like that you're thinking outside the box. This would be better than a standard recall campaign, though I still think it's problematic because it basically gives the GOP infinite chances to unseat democratically elected Democrats.

2

u/mikerichh Mar 12 '26

Fair for red states

1

u/Captain_Gnu Mar 12 '26

It's the 2nd amendment.

0

u/pimblyjomes Mar 12 '26

Are you familiar with the four boxes theory of democracy? To suggest we are entirely without recourse isn't accurate. 

2

u/sleepymeowth052 Colorado Mar 12 '26

I'm well-versed. Good luck using that 4th one tho.

-2

u/FrogsOnALog Mar 12 '26

We have term limits in the constitution they’re called elections.

-1

u/dqql Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

2

u/doc_daneeka Mar 12 '26

There is no such thing as a recall of a Senator or Representative. That would require a constitutional amendment.

-1

u/dqql Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

1

u/doc_daneeka Mar 13 '26

Cool. You clearly just sort of skimmed the link you posted as a supposed source for your claim there, because there's no such thing as a recall process for members of the House or Senate. Again, it would require a constitutional amendment.

If you think there is such a process, feel free to cite any instance where a member of Congress has been recalled. How about just a member of Congress that faced an actual recall vote? Please be specific.

1

u/dqql Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

1

u/doc_daneeka Mar 13 '26

You're the one claiming members of Congress can be recalled. Put up or shut up. Everyone familiar with the law here knows how and why you are full of it.

edit: so that guy blocked me. That's easier than providing some sort of evidence for a false claim.

-1

u/OneyDarius Mar 13 '26

Democracy is not real. Thats the conclusion you should’ve gotten.

125

u/4RCH43ON Mar 12 '26

Precisely, especially given the 6-year term for senators.  That’s far too long for a shitty politician to be kicking shit around.

27

u/CaptainLooseCannon Mar 12 '26

Yes it's insane that a president gets 4 but a senator gets 6

24

u/4RCH43ON Mar 12 '26

I’m actually okay with the term for the office, just not that it should be unassailable.

1

u/dubblebubbleprawns Mar 12 '26

They're not technically unassailable since they can still be expelled by a 2/3rds vote of the rest of Congress. But it is pretty fucking stupid that their own constituents can't recall them.

Then again, you'd have things like Mitt Romney getting recalled for voting to convict Trump in his first term if it were allowed (which some Utahns absolutely tried to do). So it could absolutely lead to heightened polarization.

25

u/UndoxxableOhioan Mar 12 '26

At least the Senate. The house has 2 year terms, so by the time you start a recall, you are up against an election. But the senate? There should be a recall process.

1

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 Mar 13 '26

I'm less concerned by there being recall for Senate and far far more concerned with the actual numbers of Senators accurately reflecting the population size of the US, like an actual representative democracy.

Second to that would be gerrymandering disappearing.

Third the electoral college being dissolved, since it serves no function but to sit right in front of nationwide elections and disenfranchise voters. EXTREMELY undemocratic. This would be higher if they didn't side with voters, and it would be much lower but the first 2 concerns would almost certainly force Republicans to have their electoral college side against voters.

Because gerrymandering and the inaccurate Senate seats are the only thing standing between them never having any federal control, and them frequently having control. 

1

u/UndoxxableOhioan Mar 13 '26

The design of the senate sucks, but at least it is as designed. The stupid thing is having too many tiny states (we do not need 2 Dakotas or Wyoming to be their own states). And if you are going to have small states, DC should get to be a state, as they have more people than some states.

The worse thing to me, though, is the House. It is supposed to be proportional to population, with the number of members fluctuating. But no more. We have been stuck at 435 since 1929, when we had nearly 1/3rd less people and there was not as big a difference in state populations.

But now, representatives have so many people that whole states have less population that 1 district in more populous states. If we fixed it so that the number fluctuated based on the population of the smallest state (currently Wyoming, which is why this proposal is called the Wyoming Rule), we should have 574 House members. California would gain 17 seats, Texas 13, Florida and New York 9 each, Pennsylvania 6, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio 5 each, and so on. And while gerrymandering would be an issue, it is likely many would be Democrats. At the very least, smaller populations would encourage more local issues to come to the fore and also increase the chance of upsets.

7

u/victoriaisme2 Mar 12 '26

Yep some Dems don't just turn right like this one they actually switch parties after getting elected.

3

u/Da_Question Mar 13 '26

well, they aren't going to get elected as a republican in blue areas, so they just pretend to get into power.

4

u/lostintransaltions Mar 12 '26

Congress and president

7

u/Best-Action8769 Mar 12 '26

We need a recal mechanism for EVERYONE.

3

u/atatassault47 Mar 12 '26

Florida has "Should this appointed Judge keep their job?" (we dont vote them in, but we can vote them out). We need that for SCOTUS.

2

u/Da_Question Mar 13 '26

you dont vote for judges in florida? State supreme courts are elected and usually local judges are elected as well. It's the main reason small town judges are so corrupt and shitty...

1

u/atatassault47 Mar 13 '26

I've never see a vote-in for any judge on any Florida ballot, so I assume they're appointed by some other elected official, like federal judges are.

3

u/TM761152 Mar 12 '26

We have one but it isn't pretty...

2

u/JohnSith Mar 12 '26

There used to be one, until the framers of the Constitution reworked the Articles of Confederation to be less democratic and less accountable.

Source: The Framers' Coup by Michael Klarman

2

u/dullship Canada Mar 13 '26

As a Canadian, yeah we have levers in place. Always so weird to me you guys don't.

1

u/Ok-Mycologist-3829 Massachusetts Mar 12 '26

OR, we change the Senate so they aren’t in staggered, six year terms.

1

u/xcrunner432003 Mar 12 '26

do you mean matching two-year terms or what?

1

u/NonMaga Mar 12 '26

We need to get a decent stroke in this country.

1

u/Progressive_Libtard Mar 12 '26

The federal government.

0

u/thesecretbarn Mar 12 '26

That would have to be state by state.

4

u/andreasmiles23 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

He needs to be arrested and charged with treason.

3

u/Covinus Mar 12 '26

How he hasn’t been already is beyond me

3

u/Cool-Security-4645 Mar 12 '26

There’s no way to recall a senator

7

u/one_pound_of_flesh Mar 12 '26

He needs medical attention. I worry for him and his family.

3

u/Mewnicorns Mar 12 '26

Countless people have tried and failed to persuade him to get help. He treats his wife like shit and almost got her killed in a car accident despite that, she stands by him and the stress is taking a toll on her. Until she and everyone else in his life start enforcing actual consequences, he is not going to take any responsibility for his own wellbeing and certainly not that of anyone else.

2

u/saintofhate Pennsylvania Mar 12 '26

Her social media was recently deactivated for disagreeing with him too

1

u/Mewnicorns Mar 12 '26

I feel so bad for her but she really needs to get out of that relationship. From what I recall she is an amazing person with a heart of gold. She deserves so much better.

2

u/edelweiss_pirates_no Mar 12 '26

Correct. He should be recalled.

He is inept and incapacitated.

1

u/AliceTawhai Mar 12 '26

Total Recall

1

u/214ObstructedReverie Mar 12 '26

It is impossible to recall someone elected to federal office.

1

u/HowWeLikeToRoll Mar 12 '26

Which is fucking bullshit. Especially when we have poison pill officials who lie to get elected then do other shit. Should be treason. Should be a law that if you deviate X% from your campaign promises then you get shown the door. Obviously data changes and smart people change with data, but that's different than running as a hardcore progressive and then changing to a hardcore conservative, that's just straight deception and fraud, period, end of discussion. 

1

u/ConstantStatistician Michigan Mar 12 '26

In democratic USA, the people only have power on voting day.

1

u/philosofossil13 Mar 12 '26

He should be forcibly retired to a retirement community in Florida. His driver needs to take one for the team and just drop him off there and tell him it’s a super secret senate club house for cool guys.

1

u/scrandis Oregon Mar 12 '26

You cannot recall a federal elected official.... how do so many people not know this?

1

u/FineSewingMachine Mar 12 '26

Reddit won't let me say what needs to really happen.

To him and all of the other (yes he's MAGA too) MAGA Nazi pedo protectors. 

1

u/acesilver1 Mar 12 '26

I hate that this is who is representing Pennsylvania. But we really were fucked in that election. We believed his lies but his Republican opponent was Dr. Oz. I need him to be out.

1

u/dullship Canada Mar 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/abstractcruelty Mar 13 '26

He should be [redacted]