"I would, but, uh, my dog ate them."
"Sir, you don't have a dog."
"Uhh, I meant - whathisname - Eric. Eric ate them."
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
394 points (99.0% liked)
politics
26499 readers
2255 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not fading but senile. Doesn't remember people he's pardoned or his good friend Jeffrey Epstein.
"I would, but, my dog ate them."
"Sir, you don't have a dog?"
"I had to show the dog who's boss! I ate the dog! I'M EATING THE CATS AND DOGS!!!"
By the transitive property, Trump ate the report.
"They can't be released while I'm under audit."
Fronto temporal dementia
Neuropsychologist have been saying it since his first term.
I'm all for the differently-abled having the same opportunities as everyone else, but this seems like a poor condition for the "leader of the 'free*' world" to have, right?
Yeah I agree.
Cognitive/psychological disabilities are a bit different than physical disabilities.
We can acknowledge that.
Someone without the ability to think or plan or even be aware of where they are shouldn't be in charge of other people's lives or livelihoods.
Yup. Equality is unhelpful in the real world past a certain point. It’s better to think of equitability instead. Colour blind people can become pilots, but their rating is limited according to the extent of their condition, such as being banned from night flying, or not being given a commercial licence. So they have equality in being allowed to train and to take the medical assessment, and equitability in being treated differently due to their specific circumstances rather than in general terms.
As there are already restrictions on who can be president, it’s not too much to ask that they also be of sound mind. The equitable (indeed only sane) thing would be for anyone with dementia to be immediately removed from the military chain of command.
As far as I'm concerned, disabled folks should be able to be hired to do any job that a normally-abled person can do, if they can do it with reasonable accommodations. But I'm going to have some questions if a blind person wants to do color grading, or if a nonverbal person is applying to be a live interpreter. The answer isn't no, but I do have some questions.
Those questions grow with the number of lives that are at risk. A potential surgeon who has a motor control disability is probably going to need a longer interview. An air traffic controller with sensory processing issues, even longer. A nuclear bomb technician with uncontrolled hallucinations, let's block out most of the day.
A really old guy with memory, processing, and concentration issues wants a job running a decent chunk of the whole world? A job that takes heightened focus and quick decision making, and that regularly burns out people half his age? A job that has a lot of handles on foreign and domestic policy, and the nuclear codes? I think we should probably spending a couple of months talking about that, and poring over his medical records.
And then we should hire someone else instead, because come on
differently-abled
Taught this term as a kid, in recent years saw complaints from the referenced community, wonder if choosing “disabled” is best for balance these days 🤷♂️
Leave it to Tim Walz to initiate a shrewd counter attack. Good. I’m glad he’s not taking this sitting down.
Don’t be too surprised if soon we hear the term “Dementia Don” or “Tizzy Trump”
If we're still working in nicknames, I submit Pedonald or Tronald Dump.
How did the White House become a care home?
Corporate capture. 50+ are pretty set in their ways, you wouldn't want anyone to have a midlife crisis and think "oh fuck, oh shit I'm a bad fucking person we gotta change some shit!".
Anything released will not be released with any transparency or ounce of truth. Still good to ask, because it will only reflect on them how they will respond.
What if we did charity donation events? All politicians have to fight and the public donates money to watch. All the money goes to creating a new government system and the fights go on until there is no one left.
It sounds fun on paper, but all we'd be left with is jocks running the government.
I agree we have a shit government now, but that wouldn't be an improvement. It would be an equally stupid government.
First event is a civics test.
Ah so Chessboxing basically!
Maybe also throw in a "what would you do" staged events to specifically filter for people with empathy.
Sleepy Don
Can’t lose what you never had, Tim.
Only if Walz will join our fight against our conquerors, but I'm sure he will keep allowing them to be there, thus making me more glad I left that state! :-(