Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Too fucking bad.. boo hoo.. Time for the fossils to GO!
(And I'm a 'boomer myself, and can't stand how out of touch and backwards looking most of my generation is.. GTFO you old coots! FFS buy some beer and rent a boat and go fishing and do something worthwhile with what time you have left!)
Term limits and age limits plz
Also kill Citizens United thx
and some form of ranked voting.
And maybe some form of nation-wide recall systems to deal with the fettermans of the world.
Capital gains tax reform. Companies should reinvest in production and research, not stock buybacks and golden parachutes. This could also curb enshitification.
Slap a tax for any company whose ceo makes some percentage more than its core work force.
We can get all fancy on the math, but their pay is not commensurate to the value they bring
Establishment Dems need to make way for younger and more progressive incumbents. It's clear that they will continue to cling to power until they die before doing so though.
Older Dems: we want younger people to be more engaged in politics, the more younger people that vote, the better we do.
The population: we want younger people to be Democrats instead of old people.
Older Dems: when we said we wanted younger people, we didn't mean like that.
By young they meant candidates that are only in their 60's
Those spry 60 year olds will really get the youth to the ballot boxes!
The silly thing is, those in their 60s and 50s are Generation X — you know, the generation with a lower population that boomers and millennials usually forget exist.
You just reminded me I'm in my 40s.
And it still feels weird AF. I'm not supposed to be this old.
I feel you.
This is real, I’ve read articles about how Gen X is the next generation to fill government but come on…they’re in their 50’s+.
I’d love to see more government representation by people younger than 50, and who are far more in touch with the reality the working class has to face every day.
Maybe they should go away, then
Green and Menefee will go to a runoff in May. Green swatted away questions about the age factor on Wednesday, declaring, "I am generational change."
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say when you find yourself paraphrasing mother fucking Emperor Palpatine it's time to stop being a senator
Then GTFO
Older Dem here, eagerly waiting generational change. Bring in AOC, bring in Bernie, bring in the Squad, I can't wait!
I wish Bernie had a 35 year old grandson that was exactly like he is, hair and all.
The various generations are sick of hearing from older Democrats.
I want to retire some day. I want my representatives to share that value. If you're going to be above the social security retirement age at the start of a term in a political office, you are not qualified to that office. I'll support finishing out a term you have already started, but I am done voting for people who think it is important they work themselves into the fucking grave.
That's easy, Congress will just raise the retirement age. The oligarchy wants that age raised anyway.
oh no the old fucks are "gearing up to push back" whatever will we do against their strongly worded letters
Oh the strongly worded letters are for when we want stuff. When it comes to entrenching geriatric rule for themselves, they'll use every trick in the book to hold on to power!
I’ve always wanted the age of government office to be tied to the average age of stroke/heart attack in your state. Your ass is out at that age unless you can bring that number up through comprehensive healthcare reform.
Edit: bring the age up. My brain is mush.
Oooh I like this idea
You mean up, right?
...
You mean up?
Yes, I’m a dummy.
Do you just hit an age where you stop being able to comprehend you're out of touch? Is that going to happen to all of us? I feel out of touch all the time already and I'm nowhere near the Congressional average...
Do you just hit an age where you stop being able to comprehend you’re out of touch?
No. You start out being out of touch and lack of accountability makes it worse every year.
Source: old as dirt, but still in touch.
it happens when you decide to stop learning new things and revising your existing knowledge as society and science advance
As an autistic person, comprehending that I'm out of touch is all I do. I wonder how this will impact me at 80.
They sure do bug me for money a lot for people who don't like my opinion
I’ve lost track of the number of text messages I’ve replied “STOP” to over the last few months.
I've given up with STOP, and unsubscribing with email, to just blocking everything now.
I forward them all to 7726. I doubt it's doing anything but it's cathartic. Also, 'stop' really just confirms they got themselves a live one. They probably then turn around and sell your number to other sms spammers.
"you're going to deal with my generation until until we die, and we gave Congress and the house Medicare for ourselves so we can be around until we die of something incurable."
They were even listening?
And those are the ones where generational change would be most important.
Cool, older Dems!
We're sick of you still being alive, please do something good for once in your lives and fucking die.
Wait’ll they learn first hand about nurse-to-patient ratios and turnover at hospitals and nursing homes
Waaaaaaasmbulance had been dispatched to the DNC
I think it's orchestrated, myself.
It seems nihilistic and doesn't seem to have any real aim other than further dividing Democrats. There is nothing inherently good or bad about someone's age (well, unless they haven't fully developed the PFC - there is a reason there are age requirements at the lower end) when you are trying to determine if they are fit to lead.
Now, if people were to propose using more advanced screening techniques to catch things like Alzheimer's or other problematic things (I'd be a fan of trying to screen out various traits that lead to really bad leadership, myself, but obviously implementation would have many problems and of course many detractors), that might make more sense. But no, we are listening to what sounds like petulant teenagers having tirades about older people and it's rather boring. All of us were 14 once, but most of us evolved since then. The idea that you are only going to have representation from people who are in your "generation" is an incredibly silly and narcissistic one.
Lastly I keep saying this, but: this particular period of time is really not going to age very well if life extension and other breakthroughs come online.
There’s a difference between wanting more diverse representation and only wanting representation from one generation and I think you’re being dismissive about a real complaint from those of us being told to vote for the same old guard again and again.
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
I completely understand the deep frustration with certain individuals, for example, Schumer and Pelosi. But it has little to do with their age or the number of terms they have had, in my view. Things like this should be determined, by voters, on a case by case basis.
If people are really that animated about changing the guard, then they need to do the work and show up on primaries, whether that is going so far as running themselves, or working for campaigns, or at least voting. But arbitrarily preempting the choices that others may want to vote for if they like a candidate, regardless (or perhaps because) of age/years of experience seems very unwise.
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
It isn't their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.
I want a candidate who shares that value.
A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.
We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.
Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.
I think it absolutely has to do with the number of terms they had when it’s clear they’re there to line their pockets instead of working for the working class. They’ve had ample time to work against the creep of fascism and they failed or are complicit. The fact that they’re throwing a fit over being pushed to make way for younger and more progressive candidates just reveals their selfishness.