Nobody here has even come close to saying this isn't an outright conspiracy, especially not the poster you're replying to. Why are you attacking them for something they didn't say?

I asked you "What’s the value in insulting people like this?" and you are returning to if what is happening is good or not.

I guess it’s just a difference of opinion.

It is a difference of opinion, but not on the topic you think it is.

I'm going to use this situation as an example to illustrate my point, but I want to be clear my point is much broader than this specific situation. I'm not doing this because I want to be "right". I am hoping this effort can encourage people to ask questions and better understand how government works.

Is the seat vacant?

I think we all agree the seat is vacant if McConnell is dead. Let's move past that.

You are lashing out at myself and others when we are trying to tell you that the term vacant has specific legal meaning and does not include being incapacitated. I linked a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared by a Legislative Attorney specifically titled "Incapacity of a Member of Congress". It was written in 2011. I know there are a lot of lobbying groups that call themselves "think tanks" or "research groups" but this is Congresses own research branch.

As an aside, I work with (municipal) governments on interpreting legal matters, specifically related to contract law and environmental law to prepare for litigation but I am an engineer, not a lawyer. I am adding this to emphasize how normal it is to have staff lawyers review these situations and provide their opinion to help elected officials make decisions. Politicians often need gentle nudges towards what they do have power over versus wasting money and effort on doing something that will be immediately overturned.

No one is saying this seat isn't vacant because the Republicans say so. None of this is a difference of opinion on what vacant means. The seat is not vacant.

What can the Governor do?

Gov. Beshear, the person you are suggesting can "do something" also knows the seat is not vacant. He has expressed concern that McConnell is unable to serve in his capacity as Senator, but understands that he cannot exercise his constitutional power to fill a vacancy that doesn't exist. His only power in this situation is to publicly shame McConnell and the Senate into using their own power to make the seat vacant.

This is an incredible irony. The Governor is effectively saying "Look, we all know this is legally okay and no one can stop you. But it's wrong and you shouldn't do it. I'm telling the public what you are doing in the hopes that this will put pressure on you." and yet despite this, your conclusion is that he can actually declare the seat vacant and fill it.

I am open to hearing why you think this if you want to share. Again, not why you think he should be able to but why you think he is able to. I am not mocking or shaming you. You clearly believe this to be true and would like to understand what I am missing.

There is nothing wrong with realizing you didn't have all the info (i.e. didn't read the actual letter). I'm not asking you to publicly admit that. It serves no purpose. If this is the case, I hope it helps highlight how easy it is to get worked up about a situation that doesn't exist in reality and what tools can be used to determine the facts.

How can the seat be made vacant?

McConnell can die, resign or be expelled by a vote of the Senate. Others have been removed if they accept an office "incompatible" with Congressional Office even if they do not formally resign. This is not automatic, and needs to be initiated.

Any Senator can initiate a resolution expel a member for any reason. It needs 2/3 of the members to pass. To my knowledge, no Senator has initiated this process in the case of McConnell. No senator has been successfully expelled since 1862 (14 expelled for supporting the Confederate Rebellion), but in more recent years folks have resigned when it was recommended that proceedings be started.

Either house can refuse to seat a member-elect if they cannot take the oath of office, but this does not apply to McConnell. The House of Representatives took this approach with Gladys Noon Spellman (D) who was in a coma when she was re-elected. Spellman's seat was declared vacant because she did not take the oath of office and therefore was not seated. It also came up when two Representatives were re-elected despite having gone missing when their airplane was lost (1972, both D). In this case however, they were declared dead by the end of the year and the seats were vacated that way.

Is this a new situation that requires someone take the stand of interpreting what vacancy means and do something?

No.

Similar situations where people could not serve as a result of poor health have occurred in the past, including Senators being comatose for years. These are listed in the report I linked, I want to highlight that these occurred in the following periods and the member belonged to the party indicated in brackets: 1942-1946 (-D), 1964 (-D), 1969-1972 (-R) and 1986 (-R). It happened in the House of Representatives once, in 1980 (-D).

As you can see, this isn't new and isn't confined to one party. The Senate has decided not to address the situation despite it happening time and time again. Here is an article about the situation in 1986. It seems rolling out frail elderly people to cast votes is a time honored tradition:

Sen. Clair Engle (D-Calif.). He suffered from brain cancer and, after undergoing repeated operations, was left partially paralyzed and unable to speak distinctly.

In June, 1964, a month before his death, he was brought into the Senate by wheelchair to vote for the landmark Civil Rights Act. During one roll call, he pointed to his eye to indicate that he wanted to vote “aye.”

The question of what to do in these situations has been asked over and over and the decision has been made, over and over to do nothing. Elected officials of any party will change what they care about. They do not care about this.

So what's your point again?

Lashing out at people who are trying to help you understand the facts of the matter is harmful to the collective power of the working class. It is likely harmful to yourself as an individual because it can be isolating to feel like you are alone in your concern, or that the situation is hopeless and the bad guys are going to win because others don't care enough or they secretly support how the Republicans are handling this.

I think our difference of opinion is that you believe this is illegal or should be illegal and I believe a choice has been made to refuse to address this situation and that no one in power now, or since the first time in happened in the 1940s has interest in making capacity to serve a condition of remaining in office.

It's okay to not like this situation and be angry. It's okay to vent about it. I'm not going to sarcastically and smugly suggest you channel that anger into action to prevent it from happening again. The one thing I do want to suggest is that you look at this as part of the bigger picture.

This stuff is obscure and complicated on purpose and you are kept tired and uneducated on it on purpose. I have observed that people get angry when they think the government is doing something illegal or that they think is illegal. I don't think that's really a useful distinction because the government makes the laws and legal doesn't mean morally or ethically correct.

What I do think is really helpful is when people understand the laws in the context of understanding how the government seeks to legitimize its actions, and how the theater of Republican vs Democrat give the illusion that things will get better this time.

I wasn't going to respond to your baseless accusations about what I am or am not okay with but I will say this: every day I hope for the people of the United States to achieve class consciousness and dismantle their settler colonialist state. I recognize saying this probably means you are going to ignore everything I wrote but that's your choice. I have no skin in this game. It just upsets me when I see people doing the work of the imperialist and fighting each other instead of the state.

It's usually just theft, in some jurisdictions it's a special type of fraud - but colloquially it's used for both employer and employee.

So anyone who doesn't go along with the GOP's stalling plan for a Senate seat is a "fash" now.

That isn't even close to what I said.