cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26024422
Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s former chief of staff, thinks the Democrats need a bolder vision.
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.
Anybody
She going to be another Feinstein?
Clickbait is not including the name in the post title.
… is it Father Time?
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.
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.
I have family and friends in California. They all thought Feinstein was way too freaking old.
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
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?
Limit every office to 1 term
Will all these hours of community service be paid or are we restricting public office to those who can afford to work for free?
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?
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
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
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!
“I’ve got some news: I’ve decided to run against Nancy Pelosi to represent San Francisco in Congress. I know some of you might be surprised that Speaker Emeritus Pelosi is running again, but she is—for her 21st term!” Chakrabarti’s post read.
I fucking hate boomers in political office. They refuse to let go of the reins. They want to hold on until death. Selfish.
I saw a video last year asking people in the UK about USA politics and someone commented how old our leaders are.
I think she is too old to be a boomer, that generation was 1946 to 1964. She was born 1940
Yeah, she’s Silent Generation, same as Biden.
This strengthens the point being made though
Meh, it’s not the age thing for me. And I don’t care if someone works until they choose to retire, as long as the people want them. I think ageism and the appeal to some magical term limits thing is rather useless.
I hate just how disconnected her comment was about the insider trading. It’s infuriating. Republicans do it, too, but she somehow became the face of this.
I don’t know that her or others like her are doing anything to bring up the next set of leaders, though. I also don’t really see her fighting for progress. The age thing, the number of terms - entirely secondary and honestly, it’s just red herring in my view. All one has to do is look at Bernie.
I think the age thing is a problem, if for no other reason than that very old politicians won’t have to live as long in the world that they create. Sure, for politicians of good faith, that wouldn’t matter much; but many of the ones currently in office would absolutely trade our future for their own temporary enrichment, knowing that they won’t be here when the chickens come home to roost.
Like I said, I think far too much time is spent on things that are really side-issues and red herring such as term limits and age.
You could have someone in their 20s (or whatever the minimum age is for a given position) come in there, still do insider trading, still do everything for the sake of the owner-donor class and then go through that revolving door into a cozy job within the corporate world as a reward for doing everything they were told in their single term and it would still be a huge problem.
Howling about someone’s age or how many terms they have served seem to just be a distraction from the real problems. To me, anyway.
Yeah, so we need to plug all of those holes, too. I’m not saying that’s the thing that’d solve everything. Just that it helps.
Term limits makes buying politicians more expensive and insider trading less lucrative, while containing the damage one bad actor can do. Overturning Citizens United makes it even more expensive. Switching from FPTP to ranked choice voting makes third party candidates more viable. Abolishing the Electoral College equalizes the value of votes between rural and urban citizens. Age limits make it so that politicians have to live with the consequences of their actions for longer. Expanding the judiciary makes justice swifter and makes it less likely that a politician who breaks the law can escape justice by being elected again.
There’s certainly not a magic bullet. We have to do a lot of things. I’d agree that age limits aren’t the highest problems on the list—but they’re on it.
I just think that (upper) age limits will quickly become rather myopic, and this may happen sooner than most people think.
I also think term limits is usually a stalking horse for the far right for other matters and I don’t think those outside the far right should fall for it. I think term limits solves nothing and I also think that robs people of incumbents that they love. If people keep choosing the same people to put into office, why the hell not? Most especially if it’s like any other job.
I think if we solve the actual problems, age and term limits fall by the wayside as the red herring they are for several reasons.
I just think that (upper) age limits will quickly become rather myopic, and this may happen sooner than most people think.
I don’t think it should be a set number. I think it should be pegged to the average life expectancy in the US. That gives them an incentive to make policy that improves lifespan.
I also think term limits is usually a stalking horse for the far right for other matters
Even a broken clock can want the right thing for the wrong reasons twice a day. (I think that’s how the saying goes?)
and I don’t think those outside the far right should fall for it. I think term limits solves nothing
I think it makes politicians more expensive to bribe.
and I also think that robs people of incumbents that they love. If people keep choosing the same people to put into office, why the hell not?
In a functional democracy, sure! But an incumbent has a massive advantage over any challenger, and primarying them almost always fails; even for remarkably unpopular candidates. “Better the devil you know…”
I think if we solve the actual problems, age and term limits fall by the wayside as the red herring they are for several reasons.
Maybe. But I don’t know if those problems can stay solved.
It’s absolutely an age issue. When was the last time you met someone over the age of 60 who was both good with computers and technology in general and also has never worked in the tech industry? Id also love to see the number of government elected officials who have ever suffered any sort of real poverty and compare their ages to their peers. I guarantee that spreadsheet alone tells a novel.
I want to see an enforced retirement age, a maximum age for first time election, and a strict term limit for all positions of government. I would also love to see all elected and appointed officials stripped of the right to financial privacy and a sort of jury system of a quarterly ethics board made up of citizens chosen at random to make review decisions on official government actions.
It’s time citizens had more control over our government. They are employed by our tax dollars after all.
Eh, I dunno. I think the complaints about age and term limits should be cast aside. It’s red herring when it comes to the real problems we have. There is nothing inherently magical about age.
Right now, I’m watching the likes of Big Balls being given the keys to the kingdom, and even though they are 19, I see zero evidence they could give a rat’s ass about how anything works, even if they might have been considered good at one small aspect of tech. Even if they were a child prodigy at one sliver of time’s tech, it doesn’t mean they know shit about government, or even other aspects of tech if for instance that tech involves something like Cobol.
I also don’t think being good with computers or tech has much to do with being good at governance, and that’s coming from a life-long techie. I mean I would just love and delight in a world in which tech skills magically extrapolated to being good at everything else, but I just don’t think it works like that.
So even assuming a role like Big Balls and doge were something American voters actually wanted and was legal, I could care less if someone knows tech or not, if their motivations are warped and they have acquired zero wisdom and their platform doesn’t align with actual progress for the American people - they could be demons there just to dismantle government and too young to know the difference.
We already have minimum ages higher than 19… Also tech literacy is massively important when the law writing bodies are writing laws about tech. Most of our modern laws are anchored in tech that 60 year old, life long politicians just don’t know anything about. Also term limits are a separate issue from age entirely. I don’t think any government position should be life time appointment and I definitely don’t think that a government position should give you any real financial advantage over anyone else in the country. Government jobs should just be jobs like every other salary position in the country. It should also come with restrictions on stock trading and anything else that corrupts. That’s why I suggest a jury system for an ethics review board.
I still am not getting how age and tech are related? They may track together in general, but I also happen to think some of today’s younger generations are even LESS technically proficient in certain ways (again, younger people may be familiar with certain brands and interfaces on pads and phones, but this is less about really being tech-literate but more brand-literate).
I also don’t see how government and tech are related, either. What do they have to do with one another? This is like asking a rep to be experts on solar or EV. You don’t rely on their personal experience with those things, either, they have staff for that kind of thing. They can explain the outline to them like they are a four-year old (or a manager) just like any other matter requiring a deep dive, and there are many. I highly doubt someone in their 30s as a politico understands nuclear power any better than some geriatric one, nor would I expect them to? Same for matters of solar, or computer networks, or modernized electrical grids, etc…does someone younger just pick this sort of expertise up by osmosis while an 80-something does not? I’d be interested in the mechanism…
Ageism is fun. And also hate, but also fun.
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.
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.
Kick her the fuck out. Kick all the useless democrats out. Fuck all of them. They lost. They’re done. Go the fuck away.
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.
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?
Stick to Chinese astrology or the Mayan calendar, at least they’re entertaining.
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
Fucking ghoul looks cel shaded.
Borderlands 4 villian confirmed.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
