Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let’s kill citizens united while at it.
Which I’m a huge fan of. Not sure why we’d vote for people who won’t agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
Aren’t you so lucky to be someone who can choose to sit on the fence and not suffer the consequences. Do you understand idiotic that statement is?
Jesus Christ, I hate to do Godwins Law here but just because when you have one side that is Nazi Germany that wants to dominate the world, kill all the undesirables, all that good stuff. Then you take a gander at the British; sure, they are a world colonial empire that deserves to be shattered but they are a democracy that DOESN’T dream of world conquest and killing everyone on earth, so any nonbraindead person would pick the side of the “br’ish”.
And you, over there just sitting there thinking “heh, one side has a small amount of evil while the other is the embodiment of evil so I’m going to do nothing.”
Sure, an extreme example, but the principal is the exact same.
Take Civil Rights, just because sometimes the civil rights people may be annoying and rarely takes a few things too far DOESN’T mean they’re the same as the horrific segregationists and the KKK, who’ll kill and lynch whoever they don’t like.
Imagine going “My choices are between the Nazis or the British Empire” and thinking the answer is one of them and not burning the whole thing down if that’s the best it can offer you.
You really are a dumbass, aren’t ya? Making an argument that the Nazis were all that bad.
I suppose that’s fair, any concession, no matter how small, will constitute a defeat to your side so you must stand your ground and defend the undefendable.
Oh the nazis were horrible. The British empire was worse. The Indian famine, intentionally caused by the crown, killed almost 11 million people. Why are you downplaying genocide? Couldn’t you pick a country that didn’t kill an equal amount of people as the nazis during the same time period to play the “good guys” in your scenario?
Hey stupid, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, they killed about 11 million in the concentration camps. Imagine how many would be dead if they enacted Generalost Plan.
So killing 11 million people is bad, right? If yes, why are you ok with the British empire doing it? It’s equal parts gross and hilarious that you’re downplaying their attempts at genocide by using them as the good guys in your scenario.
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don’t vote, and corporations don’t vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn’t a failure of the politicians–it’s a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You’re never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there’s no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don’t tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don’t believe that for a second.
I guess I’d flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that’s the thing, they know they’re running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can’t do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren’t worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don’t see why this effect wouldn’t be the same for Congress and the Senate.
We need age limits for politicians. I’d be more than fine with that being 60. But this skeleton is 83; she will be 88 by the time her term is done if she wins again. Nobody near 90 should decide the future of the younger generations
I’d make it whatever the retirement age is. In Australia, that would be 67. If we have an age where we agree it’s time to collect your pension and live out your life, then it should apply to politicians as well.
No, we don’t actually have this policy. Plenty of our pollies are over 67.
Ugh get these dinosaurs out of office. I do not feel represented by someone who is a millionaire and over twice my age, they have no understanding of what my life is like or what I need.
Is she looking at Feinstein and thinking “well, I don’t need to be propped up yet, so I should still be able to run the country!”
I don’t care on which side of the aisle these oldies sit. They do not represent the will of a people who are largely younger than they are by two decades.
No, she's looking at her and her husband's bank accounts and thinking "well, I don't need to be propped up yet, so I can continue to be grossly corrupt and get even richer"
Explain how. Can you cite any trades that are particularly suspicious?
You’re basically espousing right wing talking points that they came up with to divert attention from the republicans who are actively insider trading. There are plenty of things to criticize pelosi for rather than this stupid argument which isn’t backed up by facts.
bloomberg.com/…/pelosi-s-husband-locked-in-5-3-mi…Paul Pelosi is forever making suspiciously well-timed trades. When it became a scandal, they intentionally sold Nvidia shares at a loss to try to end scrutiny of that trade.
It’s not a Republican talking point. I’m as far left as they come and I’m offended by her corruption (even if Joe Manchin’s family seems worse).
So, he exercised his options he held for quite a while, a “week before House panel considered antitrust bills”. What exactly was the insider information? And, he just exercised the options to hold the stock. Not sure how that’s evidence of insider trading
Republicans are masters of messaging. They latch onto one thing for one person and pound it over and over again. The left accepts that these are bad things (they are) but won’t whatabout enough about the Republicans that do it worse, so this becomes Pelosi’s image while those that do it worse are unknown.
While you are right this has zero to do with whatever party you want to idolize it’s a problem for all sides we need to focus on all of them, none of these clowns should be able to make trades, they are in positions where they actually can shape the outcomes of their trades that’s fucking ridiculous
And on topic there needs to be some realistic term limits for these jackasses especially when they start to get older, nothing wrong with being old but if you are running a country and you get stuck staring at cameras in a daze it’s time to go… ffs most people I know can’t wait to retire and would do so even earlier if they could yet these goblins are slopping it up at the trough
Never said it wasn’t the case, I just pointed out the Pelosi is always the target when the fact is she’s not the worst and there’s zero attention put on any Republicans regarding that.
So how about we start paying attention to Republican tradings?
People are. See those red bars in the infographics you posted? Paying attention to trades made by Republicans and paying attention made by Democrats are not mutually exclusive (also illustrated by the infographics you posted). What are you trying to achieve with this whataboutism?
I’m just pointing out the fact that people are always pointing at Pelosi but she’s not the biggest culprit and no people aren’t putting as much attention on the people who are actually worse than her.
Different story in 2020, wasn’t it? This infographic includes members of the house only though. Insider trading in the senate may have been worse or better, depending on how you’re looking at it.
The average age of constituents in her district is 40. I cant figure out how she keeps getting elected, unless she’s just never had a peimary challenger worth a damn.
She predates the baby boomers. She was in diapers when pearl harbor was bombed. Two decades younger should be the mandatory retirement age for politicians.
I'm a progressive. I usually vote Democrat, because the Republicans are horrible. Pelosi represents everything I despise about the Democratic party establishment: serving the corporate billionaires, and blocking anything that helps working people. Sure there are many Democrats who I support, but Pelosi is NOT one of them!
How the hell is it possible for her to be in touch with me a 40 something year old? How about those in their 20s? She doesn’t represent us nor have any idea what it’s like. It’s impossible.
I’d vote against Pelosi in the primaries for the same reason I’d vote against Biden or Trump or McConnell or Feinstein in the primaries. They’re all too fucking old. The average age of the Senate is 64 years. The average age of the House of Representatives is 57 years.
Here’s every senator or congressperson age 68 or older.
The fucked up thing is that people are still gonna vote for her. No one cares about corruption or acrually having good political leaders, they just need their team to win like it’s some kind of stupid sport.
Or they know how important it is that the Republicans not win.
It’s not just about keeping score and keeping points for the red team. The blue team is currently fighting for white supremacy, christian supremacy, male supremacy, and to change the rules to make any other political party irrelevant.
If someone as wonderful as Mr. Rogers ran against Nancy Pelosi, but that person said he’d vote with his Republican colleagues on every important issue, his own personal qualities wouldn’t matter. He personally might not lie, cheat or steal, but he’d be supporting a party that openly does all those things.
It sucks, but when it’s a first-past-the-post system with 2 major parties, you mostly have to hold your nose and vote against the greater evil.
There’s corruption. The whole system is corrupt and Pelosi is a whirlwind of corruption. Does not make right wing conspiracy theories any more correct, though.
I’m in her district. This has given me a possibly-crazy idea. What if I registered to run against her? Hear me out.
I don’t think that I could win. She’s been in the game for so long, I have no illusions. But, registering and announcing a campaign to challenge her might result in some national publication contacting me for a quote. I might be able to get a line in said publication and get people talking about it.
“Nancy Pelosi should get out of the way of younger generations and let those who came after her have a seat at the table.”
I’d appreciate feedback on the value of doing something like this. Also, the likelihood that it would have the desired outcome. Also, thoughts on how this might be done.
I’ve been kicking this idea around since this morning when I first saw this. I’m increasingly thinking that it sounds like a good idea. Thoughts?
Awesome, that’s good to know! I just assumed they picked if there would be competition due to how some Republicans threatened to “primary” incumbents that didn’t fall in line.
Here’s what you do, announce that you’re running, say your peace, and when you’re surfing that publicity wave, announce that you’re running for governor of California. No flaw!
He had a good platform too; a true leftist planning for the future of AI, UBI, etc. She just straight out refused to debate him. Then she ran a smear PR campaign on him just to be sure
Do it! As one of the most notable Democrats alive it’d be a near impossible task to unseat her, but maybe you get 20% of the vote and that’s not a terrible result. After that maybe someone more notable like a Mayor or state rep would run and maybe win. Shoot your shot!
Running in such a prominent campaign would probably make your life suck. Pelosi’s seasoned team would probably go through your entire life with a fine-toothed comb and spin anything remotely negative about you to make it seem like you were a serial killer. The Republicans, meanwhile, might throw money into supporting you without caring if you wanted their “help” just to make Pelosi’s life hell.
There are probably already real challengers who actually want the job who you could support instead. If you donated to them and volunteered for them, they might make enough noise to at least get some headlines. And, you wouldn’t have to stick your own neck out.
“Nancy Pelosi should get out of the way of younger generations and let those who came after her have a seat at the table.”
Don’t stop with her. Make your platform about Glitch McConnell, Dianne “The Wraith” Feinstein, Chuck “Touch” Grassley, and every other member of Congress who can’t even claim to be a boomer because they were born before the end of WW2. Their generation built the America we have now; how’s it working out for y’all?
Add comment