cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26024422
Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s former chief of staff, thinks the Democrats need a bolder vision.
Why the fuck is this ghoul still running in the first place? Please primary her ass CA.
You think too much of CA. CA is INCREDIBLY liberal, so much of CA loves her and worships the memory of Dianne Feinstein.
Trump got 38% of California to vote for him last year. We are nowhere close to “incredibly liberal”. Also I hate Pelosi.
Undereducated people who can’t stand the cognitive dissonance of the liberal control of CA, paying lip service to issues that actually affect the working class while enriching the elites, restricting freedom and protecting the stability of the status quo above all.
Yep, this is nail on the head.
Also, a lot of the monied interests are tied to very old people. They’re massively out of touch with the world of now, and still think reality is 1998. They’re geriatric Matrixers.
She’s been fine, but it is past time for change
Pelosi has been a massive driving force in keeping the DNC from getting younger or less neo liberal. She has blocked committee assignments at every turn for more left leaning and younger congresspeople, most famously AOC. She is the head of the Democrat side of the absurdly corrupt insider trading gerentocracy of a Congress we have had for decades. The self enrichment is absolutely disgraceful, paying lip service to left wing causes while actively preventing meaningful left wing movement to take hold in the party and country. She and McConnell are two very effective leaders on either side of the same grifter coin perpetuating American neo liberal imperialism at the expense of the working class worldwide.
You know when MAGA talked about draining the swamp during elections? Probably the one time the broken clock was right. Pelosi was a huge contribution to the orange men first term. Insider trading, status quo, eroding workers right while sugarcoating it with social issues etc
You are killing it with these synopses. Excellent
I have family and friends in California. They all thought Feinstein was way too freaking old.
So incredibly liberal they voted to keep prison slavery
That is liberal honestly. Punishment of any crime means you are now an indentured servant of the state.
And we have homeless basically illegalized as rent goes up, so the forces who put out our fires are the ones who lived in those areas when rent was lower.
Term and age limits will be needed if the Constitution is improved, alongside ditching first-past-the-post voting. A great deal of America’s rot comes from the stagnation caused by career politicians who simply exist to occupy a seat.
Sure, we might lose ‘wise’ leaders, but it has become pretty damn clear that archaic politicians are the plugged toilets of Democracy. All they do is cause a mess if not promptly handled. The Geronocrats must go.
It comes from citizens united as well. We are a country whose government runs on bribe money and little else.
Fuck yes, let’s go with it!
- Politician age range 30-50
- Background check
- Minimum Education Requirements
- Understands science (including biology) and technology thoroughly at minimum high school level
- 200 hours of community service working with the poor
- 200 hours of community service working with the elderly
- 200 hours of community service working with immigrants
- Debt, Funding and Corporate Alliance check
- Blocked from stock market trades along with immediate family
- No bribes
- No Lobbying
- No ex C-STAFF for major companies.
- Paid enough to be single yacht and a summer home kind of rich.
What else we need in here or what have I gone wrong on?
I have no issue with politicians up to age 65, if we want to capture the breadth of their experience. After 65 though, they’re out. Cognitive decline is a sharp dropoff, and we want politicians who are a going concern for the decisions they make.
Yeah less for cognitive decline, I kind of want to see more churn on bodies in chairs. Let en go out and earn the rest of their fortunes before retirement.
A way to get politicians to vote against their own self interest.
It’s probably easier to make it so their self interest is best served by serving the people, by doing something along the lines of tying their pay to the median pay of their constituents.
That’s not a bad idea How would we do it?
I love the concept, I think that’s going to be kind of hard to write into law.
Maybe instead we could find some way where they are beholden to their constituents?
I guess part of the problem with that is misinformation. We need something to watch over, and stamp out propaganda, But how do you do that without making a tool so powerful that it could be used for evil, or more succinctly, how could you set up guardrails to keep it from being evil.
Removed by mod
Wonder how long before the dictator state sees the 2nd as a threat and starts to curb it?
Will all these hours of community service be paid or are we restricting public office to those who can afford to work for free?
Limit every office to 1 term
Let’s throw in a lifelike animatronic AOC fuck doll, while we’re mixing ridiculous fantasy with our politics
aww look at you articulating your feelings, so cute
Hey I’m saying it wouldn’t happen, not that it wouldn’t be great if it did
The fact that this would’ve put Bernie out of a job years ago is a hard no for me. Campaign finance reform so we don’t have a bunch of corporate stooges in power, and getting rid of FPTP make more sense to me. Better alternative candidates will have a chance, as well as life-ling civil servants who are proven and lovee by their communities
A neat person like Bernie doesn’t have to be a politician to do good works. He can help mentor grass root organizations. While it would be a shame to lose a good guy from direct politics, it is far easier for evil politicians to stick around if we don’t force them out. A good guy is apt to step down from power when they think it is right, but an evil one? They won’t leave until carried out in a coffin.
Life long service or being old are not synonymous with being evil. You could also be forcing a dedicated good guy out with term limits and making way for an evil person
Back when Pelosi was pushing the Affordable Care Act she came on KQED and railroaded the host, basically just ignored all the questions to deliver the party line. I was bruh this is your home base and acted like it was hostile territory.
Pelosi has been a huge fundraiser and leader for the Democrats, but might as well live on planet Mars when it comes to understanding working class people, even in the Bay Area.
We need a leadership vacuum in the Democratic Party to even hope of changing anything significantly.
Pelosi has been a huge fundraiser and leader for the Democrats
One reason why Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman got the old heave-ho. Pelosi has been instrumental in bankrolling Congressfolk like Henry Cuellar and Richie Torries while undermining candidates like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Her leadership has largely lead to the current moment in Democratic Party Politics, with a handful of insiders growing obscenely rich while the rank-and-file voters are told to suck eggs every time their favorite legislation fails.
We need a leadership vacuum in the Democratic Party to even hope of changing anything significantly.
The real leadership of the democratic party is within the donor class. Women like Nancy get to hold the gavel, but its the Gettys and the Buffets and the Thiels who ultimately hold the power.
All these fucking useless Democratic leaders are so selfish. You’ve failed and failed over and over again, miserably, yet you still insist on trying to lead? Do the right thing. Step down. Quit. It’s truly disgusting how they’ve strangled their party and country with their incompetence.
And let progressives who actually have plans to stop Trump win for once? Never!
She going to be another Feinstein?
Clickbait is not including the name in the post title.
… is it Father Time?
That’s not surprising. The left has been looking for someone capable of primarying her for years.
And for years she’s always held onto her position because of name recognition and money from Super PACs. Ratfucking is a bipartisan tool.
Fucking ghoul looks cel shaded.
Borderlands 4 villian confirmed.
Anybody
this ghoul still alive?
As long as one of them wins idc. If one of them loses the seat in the house then this is gonna be the fuck around found out portion.
GOOD.
Pelosi has been in congress for 36 years. To put this in perspective, that’s longer than I’ve been voting. Time to retire.
To put it further in perspective, Nancy Pelosi isn’t a boomer. She’s silent generation.
Why are generation labels getting closer together in time?
Greatest generation- 26 years
Generation Alpha - 13ish?
I can’t find a good summary and am not in any way an expert in this field. But I think these generations are technically based on defining events in the world and likely common experiences more than a close tie to biological generations. If you look at the page for the Silent Generation wiki page there is some explanation of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation#Terminology
TL;DR it’s all very loosey goosey.
Stick to Chinese astrology or the Mayan calendar, at least they’re entertaining.
Not so silent
She seems pretty silent on her inside trading.
But not silent on banning it, always voting no.
Needs to be updated. Gen Alpha is 2013-2024 and Gen Beta is 2025-current.
The other generations listed cover anywhere from 15 to 28 years. Why would gen alpha only be 11 years?
Have to ask Mark McCrindle.
I’m sure if you let them know, the folks at wikipedia will get on that. Have they changed the dates of the Silent Generation?
It’s longer than I have been alive. Some of my peers are raising children. She’s been in office for an entire generation.
Yup. Early forties here. Not quite there for me, lol
No matter, your view on her, it really is time to retire, she is 84.
It was time to retire 20 years past. It’s time to give back all the money she stole from her communities with all the insider trading bullshit.
She always gets shit for insider trading, as she should, but she’s not even in the top 10 worst. And it’s not a party thing, it’s freaking systemic
Member Trades Volume (millions) Estimated Return Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) 4,013 66.76 19.1% Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) 1,925 167.63 22.7% Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) 575 91.44 21.8% Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) 270 7.16 5.7% Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC) 186 13.58 56.3% Rep. John James (R-MI) 164 1.33 N/A Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)160 4.13 30.2% Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) 143 1.26 16.3% Sen. Tom Carper (D-DL) 100 3.32 32.6% Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) 97 6.54 28.0% -Source - https://www.fool.com/research/congressional-stock-trading-who-trades-and-makes-the-most/
Meh, I know I’m in the minority here, but I’d rather it was based on merit and policy positions.
I DGAF about someone’s age as long as they are still fit and they have the right policies. Assuming someone like AOC stays in until she’s 84 and shows no sign of moving to the right and no sign of slowing down?
Going forward, I think we will very likely have even OLDER politicos than we do now, assuming breakthroughs on slowing down aging, even age reversal. Of course, that assumes that Bronzo the Clown and fElon and Brainwormz don’t completely break our system of innovation and healthcare. But if it doesn’t happen here, it will happen in other countries…so I don’t think the ageism we see right now will itself age all that well…
Assuming someone like AOC stays in until she’s 84 and shows no sign of moving to the right and no sign of slowing down?
Just imagine how many rail union strikes she could vote to prevent in all that time!
I’d rather we judge on mental capacity and not on physical age (so that in theory wisdom is not lost), but there is something to be said for giving someone else a chance to drive the car.
The issue with lifelong politicians isn’t just their mental capacity but their lifelong detachment from reality as they live in a privileged bubble.
Wisdom can be written down, that would be more wise to do anyway.
Yes, but there is also Bernie. He is far more attached to reality than any young Republican in the Senate (or Democrat).
Undoubtedly. However, a Bernie who retired due to age or term limits, would still be able to mentor upcoming politicians. Handing the helm to a competent person and training their successors would be a much wiser strategy than what we currently got.
Why the hell should we keep creatures like Pelosi, who exist exclusively to suckle from the fetid teat of the stock market?
Oh, we should definitely get rid of Pelosi, but not because she aged out. The Pelosi of 30 years ago was just as worthy of dismissal.
No one can argue with that, but the reason his name comes up every time is that he’s the exception, not the rule. His net worth is also a fraction of that of Pelosi’s or most of his political peers.
A ceiling on net worth for representatives is certainly an interesting concept, but not really relevant to the conversation.
It gets hard to show a correlation with time in service to detachment from reality when one of the longest serving members is the most grounded, and many of the youngest and most recent members are absolutely insane.
Even Pelosi is pretty progressive relative to the rest of the Democratic representation, and certainly of Congress as a whole. (Very feint praise given the field). She is certainly out of touch, but she was that way when she was far younger as well.
Part of the thing about being young, is having drive to do stuff. Be it good or ill. The Geronocrats have no drive, so they can’t fight the pull of the Right Wing.
The problem isn’t with youthful Democrats, it is with the fact that the elders kept them out.
The issue with lifelong politicians isn’t just their mental capacity but their lifelong detachment from reality as they live in a privileged bubble.
The point of my net worth comment is that it’s part of her privileged bubble, and is one factor encouraging Bernie to be less out of touch.
I also think Bernie still gives a shit about the common person, and I don’t think Pelosi can remember any details of how the common person lives, based on many of her recent actions, including but not limited to this.
Ultimately my point is that citing Bernie is not (IMO) a reasonable rebuttal to the quoted bit at the top of this comment, and is very specifically not an apples to apples rebuttal of the Pelosi situation, even if he weren’t also a singular example.
Bernie is (unfortunately) a rare exception.
Then demonstrate the trend to me. I’ve given you an undeniable counter example. I agree that Congress is out of touch. Are the older Congress members more out of touch than MTG or the psycho tradwife Katie Britt? I don’t think so.
And he’s acknowledged himself that he’s an anomaly in that regard.
No doubt he’s an exception, but where is evidence for the rule that would justify punishing the exception? When I think of out of touch Congress members, all the first names that come to mind are almost all among the youngest in Congress. Even Pelosi would never be on my short list if she wasn’t in leadership. (She is definitely out of touch, but she has some fierce competition). Also, all the older ones that I think of were just as bad or worse when they were younger.
but their lifelong detachment from reality as they live in a privileged bubble
Does that include Bernie?
Wisdom can be written down, that would be more wise to do anyway.
Something written may not be read. Better to have both, the Wisdom at ground zero in real-time (especially if the feces is hitting the fan), and written down afterwards for posterity’s sake.
“Politicians shouldn’t be X”
“BuT WHaT aBOuT tHIs pOLiTiCIaN?”
“yeah, them too”
Literally every fucking time lmao
Well, when someone says that ALL of them live in a “privledged bubble”, and I can see with my own eyes some that do not, I’m going to push back against that b.s. /shrug
Metaphoricallyh speaking, people keep trying to treat Life like its an On/Off switch, when in truth is a Volume control/dial, it has variance.
Does that include Bernie?
That was a slam dunk because he’s the obvious exception.
Does that include Bernie?
That was a slam dunk because he’s the obvious exception.
It also makes the point, and counters the previous point.
And even then, should he stay? If we had more people like him to take the reins, i would be more comfortable having him retire. But everyone is susceptible to time. Without someone there at the right time we will have another RGB on our hands
Yeah, he could be an advisor to a younger progressive or something.
No, we need a physical age limit. Aside from needing to get new people in so that we can pass on institutional knowledge before their staffers are voting for them while they hang out in a nursing home.
The fact that we live in a gerontocracy is part of the reason we’re in so much shit in general. Why should the 83 yo senator from Bumblefuckia give a fuck about climate change, they’ll be dead way before it’s a problem. Why do they care about proper financial regulations when it might impact their ability to insider trade and pass off their unearned wealth to their kids.
Why should the 83 yo senator from Bumblefuckia give a fuck about climate change, they’ll be dead way before it’s a problem.
They shouldn’t. I wouldn’t consider them wise if they didn’t give a fuck about it. Wise people think of the future as well as the present.
Just for the record, I’m not defending her personally (hence my “giving someone else a chance to drive the car” comment), I’m pushing back against Ageism in general. Biological age is not always a good indicator for capability (see Bernie Sanders).
Not sure why people keep conflating age with capability/morality, they’re definately seperate things.
Not sure why people keep conflating age with capability/morality, they’re definately seperate things.
Because while they may be different things, but they’re absolutely not separate things given how age and cognitive decline are correlated. Because for every Bernie sanders you have multiple Feinsteins or Grangers that are at best not there or at worst hindering processes, holding up committee votes or taking up committee seats that could be used by someone who actually wants to improve things instead of making the line go up.
Bernie is an exception who proves the rule, unfortunately.
they’re absolutely not separate things given how age and cognitive decline are correlated.
Of course, degradation comes with age, but when I say they are still separate, what I’m saying is the degree of degradation is not exactly the same for every human being, but people judge ALL older people as having the same level of severe degradation, and that is Ageism.
Bernie is a proof of what I’m saying, that not everyone degrades at the same amount/rate over the same amount of time, and it is possible to have elderly people that are very sharp-minded and very capable of doing the job, plus having the wisdom of surviving those years and the knowledge they built up from doing so to be beneficial to the rest of society.
The prejudice of Ageism really shouldn’t be justified. Anyone over a certain age shouldn’t just automatically be thrown away, there are younger people who could have mental illness that are not capable of doing a job, so age does not directly relate to capability, physical and emotional status of the brain does.
Ageism already exists in the system and we don’t have an issue with it. It’s just okay to be ageist against young people.
We say younger people are not mature enough for certain tasks, but I know plenty of kids who are younger than the required age but able to understand and perform the same tasks. Does that mean we should let 12 year olds have drivers licenses? Are we just going to ignore these kids because they haven’t met a specific age criteria? Or are we going to say that as a rule, they don’t have the mental capacity to have that privilege/responsibility.
We already have rails in place for older people to have their driving privileges taken away, at the very minimum there should be one for government work. You keep saying this is ‘throwing away’ older people, when in reality, this is removing people before they do not have the capacity to do it themselves. No one is saying they can’t advise, but they absolutely should not be steering the future of this country. Because that’s how we get to where we are now.
Ageism already exists in the system and we don’t have an issue with it. It’s just okay to be ageist against young people.
I personally don’t agree with this at all.
I don’t judge younger people by their age. I look at their ideas, and consider those before passing judgment.
Actually there’s a lot of times where I see young people doing something that I would first think “wow that’s silly”, because I’m set my ways (which I fight every day to try and not be). But then I would actually give the young person some trust and the benefit of the doubt, and actually support them in their beliefs, in a “fresh minds, fresh ideas” sort of way.
My idea is when one generation gets older that they kind of become the assistants of the next generation coming up behind them, and then we just repeat that cycle every generation.
Ageism at any age is wrong, but I’ve seen it practiced a lot more against older people that I have against younger people (especially online), hence my initial comment.
Yeah, it’s not just mental capacity, her decisions right now no longer will affect her. We should have a younger people whose these policies will also impact.
Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s former chief of staff, thinks the Democrats need a bolder vision.
Fuck yes they do!
The message that could be sent by a champagne to kick NP out could start a left wing movement.
This is going to be a California Bubbly at best though. But they can be tasty too.
