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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The age thing I’m less interested in, but competency tests and health checks probably more so. Think they’d do the same thing but more precisely (some people shit out in their 70s, some people stay sharp until they’re 100)
Some people shouldn't be eligible in their 30s. I don't know how we decide it though is the issue, and I don't trust that some conservative won't gain power and say "anyone who thinks corporations shouldn't be regulated is mentally ill" won't gain power.
She is widely credited with marshalling the passage of former President Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation, as well as bills to address infrastructure and climate change under incumbent President Joe Biden.
Her big claim to fame...
Getting republicans to vote for a more conservative healthcare plan than what the Republican candidate for president wanted to pass if he had won.
It's fucking disgusting moderates still act like that was the finish line over a decade later and oppose any more improvement to it, while demanding we call them progressive for it.
Although, once you're in your 70s, a decade probably feels like two weeks. Time flies when age related mental decline stops you from noticing the passage of time.
Hey, they had to get rid of the public option part and gut the bill to get some republican support! Ignore the fact that it was still passed entirely from a down party lines vote with zero republican support. They had to make it a shitty gutted bill for some reason. It was such an accomplishment forcing everyone to get healthcare from multi billion dollar companies with fat profit margins.
So, what you are saying, is that Democrats are extremely bad at getting their own party members to vote in line with what their voters want them to accomplish? Sounds about right.
"Getting their own party members" to vote for something is not as easy as you think. Just ask the current majority leader how easy it is to push around his "Freedom Caucus".
And the public option was not killed in the House. It was killed by Joe Lieberman, who was not even a Democrat any more. But he was the 60th Senate vote, he was opposed to it, and nobody - not even you - could have changed his mind. Consider that his final "F*** you" to his former party. So you can blame the people of Connecticut for that, not Pelosi.
This could perhaps be excused if it was a one-off freak happenstance, but with Manchin and Sinema, it's obvious that the ol' switcharoo is intentional.
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn't expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It's not a "switcharoo", it's baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema. So like it or not, lack of party discipline is a feature not a bug.
I respect older people, but at this age you really have no business being in high levels of government. Go retire and enjoy your life. If you want to, be an advisor to more junior members of congress. This wraithing is absurd.
Its a shame more people, especially younger people in the US, aren't more into things like primaries and other voting besides presidential elections. Makes me wonder who would break through future elections and who they would appoint as a result.
because the system is designed to check against this! we cannot realistically outvote the cartoonishly dumb and convoluted primary system or the electoral college. after bernie got fucked over twice, how can anyone even have hope anymore? no one more progressive that pete fucking buttigeg is getting anywhere
I live in a red state and during that election Bernie came to our state capitol and the crowd to see him was literally three city blocks deep from the stage. I had not seen anything like that in my life, ever.
If, however, people were moved to vote more between presidential elections, might that system not potentially begin to falter? Maybe it's naive, but if one really believes they've rigged the system in their favor, don't you think part of that rigging is built around downplaying the votes outside of those for president?
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.
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!
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
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
While that does suck, there are options in the primary. So you can vote her out without voting for a Republican, if that's anathema/unrealistic in her district.
I don't see how what they said has anything to do with supporting Trump, Pelosi is corrupt and too old. You should focus your anger on actual Trump cultists.
I'm a lifelong dem and I generally agree with the sentiment, minis the name-calling on his part. Her shady stock market trades are problematic at best, and we need young blood in the game. I'm hoping for a strong contender against her and I think many folks feel the same.
Stocks aren't going to inside trade themselves! Get out of the way you old cunt. Hopefully someone primaries her and the people in SF vote her out. Still worse to have a Republican in the seat but jfc this is infuriating.
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.
Well, I’d say some sort of blind trust. That way, the only way they can influence their investments is making good decisions for the overall economy. Toss in some restrictions to require they avoid boomer-chip stocks. (Ie, s&p500 type investments would be okay, but not msft or any specific company. ETFs in general are too…easy to get around though.
Yeah, I agree but the problem with that is they can still time macro events that affect index funds and ETFs when they know about something big before the public, like covid.
It should be managed and timed by someone independent and the trust just pays a salary or allowance on a schedule.
another canidate question
what has your past politics done for me locally? even nationally?
if the answer is unsure or maybe some tv propaganda answer that was fed to you then why do they deserve votes
You don't think Pelosi has done anything to advance the Democratic agenda? I don't live in her district, so I'm not sure about locally, but I do think she's been highly influential nationally, and I personally think she has done a good job.
That being said, her district is safe Democratic even if she doesn't run. She should retire, enjoy the rest of her life with her family and leave feeling good about her accomplishments. It's someone else's job to carry on the work.
Why? A congressional term is 2 years. A Senate term is 6 years. Saying "it was x years/days/weeks ago" is totally unhelpful to the larger conversation. It's reductive for no reason. And I think we both know you chose "hAlF a DeCaDe" for gravitas.
Now, if you had said something like "Pelosi hasn't sponsored any major legislation since x", sure. Let's talk. Honestly, fact is she's a fundraising dynamo. I fucking hate it, but that's the framework we're working in. She brings in money and is thus valuable to the DNC. In an ideal world she'd be replaced with a progressive who isn't an octogenarian. But that's clearly not where we are yet.
I'm as left leaning as they come and this old bitch should retire. This is one of the many many many differences between us. All you care about is winning, like this is some type of fucking football game, and I care about is what's best for our country.
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.
maybe US voters who should take more than colors and letters into consideration
such as job resume over the years, what are they financially invested in, past examples of experience, et cetera
Her district is jam packed full of the most elite liberals in the country. They love her. She's one of them. Realistically, the only one who'd replace her would be a carbon copy of her.
Lol the hammer attack would have been a great exit strategy. Oh well would you look at that, ever since my husband got his head beat in with a hammer he just can't seem to pick stocks as well.
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.
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.
No, he was not. You are spreading misinformation. He was found to liable for rape. A conviction is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, liable is more likely than not guilty. This is not pedantic, this is the difference between decades in jail and not.
That's not what you said. You said he was convicted of rape, that's not true. If you take pointing out a factual inaccuracy as worshipping Trump you're just as much a tribalist as those on Jan. 6
There should be age limits in politics. Such as retirement age minus minimum voting age. It would be 67-18 in the US. Make it so you can’t run again after you exceeded the limit.
Democrats are a very frustrating party to be with. The alternative is 50 years out of date, racists, homophobic assholes, so you're stuck with democrats. So they put up the worst fucking candidates and we're just stuck with them because if we don't vote for them it's voting for some backwards asshole.
Worse is republicans think we love these people. No we fucking don't, get these old people out and get me someone who represents me. They're just the lesser of two evils
"We are gathered here today to honor the memory of Nancy Pelosi, who-"
"Wait, no! I'm still running for Senate in 2032! I just switched to the Zombie Party!"
"...I told you guys this should have been a closed casket funeral."
Then the only people who can actually be congresspeople will be the ones who are already rich. Public service should pay enough that those who work in government shouldn't need a second source of income to provide for their families. Paying politicians $10k a year will only incentivize them to accept bribes from lobbyist and corporations, leading to career politicians.
I never said that if you pay them enough then they won't take bribes. You could pay them a billion dollars a year and there'll still be some corrupt bastards looking for bribes.
What I was saying was that if you don't pay them anything, then it will be impossible for regular, working class people to ever become politicians.
These old career politicians don't become millionaires from their federal salaries.they have PACs and get paid to be guest speakers. After they quit, they get paid millions a year to be consultants or some bullshit title VP where they only meet once a year to justify "working".
Manchin has a yatch and he's from one of the poorest states. Boats in general are a huge money sink and this asshole has a boat with enough square footage to be a regular house, 1500.
Whenever I think of West Virginia I think of rundown early 20th century homes and barefoot kids in overalls. I know it's a stereotype, but check out that video. It's so sad that they fight so hard for the coal mines that killed 3 generations because it's the only steady income in the area.
I don't condone killing politicians, but I do think tar and feathering should become fashionable again. If you're too old to outrun your constituents or survive your chickening, you're to old to represent them.
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!
To your first paragraph, decline often comes suddenly. Of course with a two year term, and hundreds of representatives, it's not as critical of a risk as a 6 year senator, but still.
American Dissident and unable to vote here
WHY THE F##K DO Y'ALL PEOPLE KEEP VOTING THESE F##KS BACK IN ? IS IT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO B###H ABOUT LATER ONLINE?
talking to y'all will definitly vote biden this fall because his name does not start with T
sounds like Pakleds voting
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.
Damn bro calm down, that level of hate against any human is concerning. I absolutely think she should be voted out and go enjoy her retirement, but wishing that level of ill upon another person is worrying.
We do legitimately have a gerontocracy problem and this doesn't help, but at the same time as long as she's capable of doing the job I can't in good conscience object either. The beauty of our system of government is anyone can run. You don't like her, run against her or STFU and quit screaming at the clouds.
The beauty of our system of government is anyone can run. You don’t like her, run against her or STFU and quit screaming at the clouds.
You act like primaries are fair...
Even the DNC stopped doing that years ago, why do you still believe it?
The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”
if the dnc didn't like fucking up primaries, bernie's vp would be the front-runner in 2024. oh, and the country would be in a lot better shape than it is now, too.
i hope california can come up with a candidate that can challenge pelosi in the primaries.
The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”
I'm not saying the DNC isn't biased. But it looks like that was a legal arguments made by lawyers. Generally, they make every argument they can fit into their brief.
Shahid Buttar was a very good candidate running against Pelosi. DNC wasn't happy and the idiot Dem voters from the District just fell in line behind the incumbent as both party's voters tend to do. It's just a fucked up, dysfunctional system we have going here.
Lookee there. The candidate didn't get the support or votes and lost. Therefore it's a dysfunctional system. If you added "and it must be destroyed" you could join the Republican party. Candidates lose. It happen every election.
It's a dysfunctional system because of the way it is. If you can't see it...well, I don't know what to tell you. I would love to get a pair of those rose-tinted ignorance-is-bliss glasses.
True, anyone can technically run. But in practice, a fresh-faced new candidate going up against a well-funded incumbent will very very rarely win. The few times it has happened the incumbent either didn’t take the threat seriously (AOC), or the incumbent was involved in a big scandal.
For your well-intentioned version of America to exist in reality, we’d need to do a few things: overturn Citizens United, require that all elections be fully publicly funded, ban private political donations, and stop letting elected officials draw their own maps. Until then, the gerontocracy will go on.
But you do live in the district? Excellent. Now get some support and raise some money. Make sure to talk to the party of choice. Get some petitions signed. You have to work to get on a ballot.
289 Comments
Hazdaz@lemmy.world · 200 pts · 2y
Oh for fucks sakes.
sebinspace@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 2y
Fuck’s sake *
Gee2oo40@lemmynsfw.com · 7 pts · 2y
Yes. Fuck posses the sake.
Beelzebubba@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Is it for the sake of just one fuck, or for all of the fucks?
Gee2oo40@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 2y
One must consider both, the aggregate (greater fuck group) and the individual fuck as well.
Gork@lemm.ee · 11 pts · 2y
She's only one more reelection to lichdom.
TheYear2525@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
We should turn her into a giant baby.
Gork@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
We need to find her phylactery first, otherwise she'll always return.
kaitco@lemmy.world · 179 pts · 2y
No.
No, no, no, no, no!
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.
Alto@kbin.social · 39 pts · 2y
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"
kaitco@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 2y
Well, she is the queen of congressional insider trading…
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 2y
She was # 6 in 2021, # 1 to 5 were all Republicans.
Then things didn't go as well in 2022
So how about we start paying attention to Republican tradings? 👍
thrawn@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
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.
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
mikeboltonshair@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2y
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
This is a class issue always has been
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2y
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.
30mag@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2y
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.
30mag@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2y
That's her investments, not her gains.
Fal@yiffit.net · -9 pts · 2y
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.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/pelosi-s-husband-locked-in-5-3-million-from-alphabet-options?srnd=premium#xj4y7vzkg 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).
Fal@yiffit.net · -2 pts · 2y
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
kaitco@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
I mention her trading because this is a post about her.
Corruption is corruption and it spans both chambers and all layers of government.
Fal@yiffit.net · -2 pts · 2y
So you don't care if it's true or not, you're just mentioning it because you associate insider trading with pelosi for just random unrelated reasons?
30mag@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
jscummy@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 2y
Younger by two decades is still mid 60s/retirement age
Beelzebubba@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
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.
send_me_your_ink@lemmynsfw.com · 13 pts · 2y
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.
stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world · 121 pts · 2y
Hi, dem here. WE DONT WANT FUCKING ELDRITCH GODS REPRESENTING US anymore. Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.
ZeroCool@feddit.ch · 48 pts · 2y
Term limits and age limits.
stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
The age thing I’m less interested in, but competency tests and health checks probably more so. Think they’d do the same thing but more precisely (some people shit out in their 70s, some people stay sharp until they’re 100)
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2y
The age limit thing is definitely a tradeoff. We would lose people like Pelosi and Trump (and Biden), but we'd also lose Bernie Sanders.
STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2y
Good. There's tons of younger people who stand for the same things that Bernie stood for.
stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Anyone you’d like to shout out specifically, nows the perfect op
pqdinfo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
The Squad only exists in social media, in reality and practice they are run of the mill neolibs
OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y
And probably a lot less delusional.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 2y
Some people shouldn't be eligible in their 30s. I don't know how we decide it though is the issue, and I don't trust that some conservative won't gain power and say "anyone who thinks corporations shouldn't be regulated is mentally ill" won't gain power.
rbhfd@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
But can you trust that they will remain sharp for 4 years (or whatever the term of the position they're running for)?
stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
This is the key to term limits right here imo
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 101 pts · 2y
Her big claim to fame...
Getting republicans to vote for a more conservative healthcare plan than what the Republican candidate for president wanted to pass if he had won.
It's fucking disgusting moderates still act like that was the finish line over a decade later and oppose any more improvement to it, while demanding we call them progressive for it.
Although, once you're in your 70s, a decade probably feels like two weeks. Time flies when age related mental decline stops you from noticing the passage of time.
CryptoRoberto@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 2y
Hey, they had to get rid of the public option part and gut the bill to get some republican support! Ignore the fact that it was still passed entirely from a down party lines vote with zero republican support. They had to make it a shitty gutted bill for some reason. It was such an accomplishment forcing everyone to get healthcare from multi billion dollar companies with fat profit margins.
FlowVoid@midwest.social · 14 pts · 2y
They had to get rid of the public option to get enough Democratic support to pass.
It was not a party line vote, 34 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting No. It squeaked through the House, 219-212.
CryptoRoberto@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 2y
So, what you are saying, is that Democrats are extremely bad at getting their own party members to vote in line with what their voters want them to accomplish? Sounds about right.
FlowVoid@midwest.social · 3 pts · 2y
"Getting their own party members" to vote for something is not as easy as you think. Just ask the current majority leader how easy it is to push around his "Freedom Caucus".
And the public option was not killed in the House. It was killed by Joe Lieberman, who was not even a Democrat any more. But he was the 60th Senate vote, he was opposed to it, and nobody - not even you - could have changed his mind. Consider that his final "F*** you" to his former party. So you can blame the people of Connecticut for that, not Pelosi.
hark@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
This could perhaps be excused if it was a one-off freak happenstance, but with Manchin and Sinema, it's obvious that the ol' switcharoo is intentional.
FlowVoid@midwest.social · 2 pts · 2y
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn't expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It's not a "switcharoo", it's baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema. So like it or not, lack of party discipline is a feature not a bug.
hark@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Yet the republican party has no trouble keeping their dogs in line.
FlowVoid@midwest.social · 6 pts · 2y
No Republicans voted for it.
In fact, she had to work to get Democrats to vote for it. It passed the House 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all the Republicans voting No.
AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2y
That was the joke...
AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2y
MossBear@lemmy.world · 90 pts · 2y
I respect older people, but at this age you really have no business being in high levels of government. Go retire and enjoy your life. If you want to, be an advisor to more junior members of congress. This wraithing is absurd.
Kerred@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Its a shame more people, especially younger people in the US, aren't more into things like primaries and other voting besides presidential elections. Makes me wonder who would break through future elections and who they would appoint as a result.
_number8_@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2y
because the system is designed to check against this! we cannot realistically outvote the cartoonishly dumb and convoluted primary system or the electoral college. after bernie got fucked over twice, how can anyone even have hope anymore? no one more progressive that pete fucking buttigeg is getting anywhere
Kerred@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Yeah Bernie losing the primary felt odd I thought more people preferred him over the rest
TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
I live in a red state and during that election Bernie came to our state capitol and the crowd to see him was literally three city blocks deep from the stage. I had not seen anything like that in my life, ever.
WarmSoda@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
The only person Trump was scared of during that election was Sanders. He's on tape talking about it privately.
ALostInquirer@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Is it? Or is it only sustained by, let's call it, a minimal voter turnout? That is, the system works as expected by those in play so long as voter turnout remains within historical trends which appear to sit under half of all eligible voters during non-presidential election years.
If, however, people were moved to vote more between presidential elections, might that system not potentially begin to falter? Maybe it's naive, but if one really believes they've rigged the system in their favor, don't you think part of that rigging is built around downplaying the votes outside of those for president?
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
What are you talking about? “Young people” are turning out more at their age than prior generations at that age.
Kerred@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Now 3 of them instead of 2!
Just kidding but it is nice to see voting percentage in the US go up
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 80 pts · 2y
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?
ArgentRaven@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2y
I think the local DNC would have to "allow" it. Otherwise you'd run as something-other-than-Democratic.
But all it would cost you is time, and maybe a small filling fee to find out.
I say, go for it! It would at least shake up the geriatric incumbents a bit.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2y
The local DNC could potentially work against you but they can't stop you from running in the primary as long as you meet the requirements.
ArgentRaven@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
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.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
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!
tallwookie@lemm.ee · 12 pts · 2y
Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 2y
We need a competitor. Please do it.
Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 2y
have you heard of Shahid Buttar
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 2y
Apparently, I had. The first two links on a search had already been visited. That's discouraging. Thanks!
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 2y
odbol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
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
merc@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2y
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.
CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world · 3 pts · 2y
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?
BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Do it!
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
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!
Astroturfed@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
I wish you would. Get your friends to do it too... "Nancy Pelosi Faces a Dozen Primary Challengers" might draw some more attention.
stephfinitely@artemis.camp · 67 pts · 2y
We need to put an age limit on political offices
Poggervania@kbin.social · 44 pts · 2y
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.
hogunner@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Yes, term limits are a much better solution as age restrictions can be a slippery slope.
Wrench@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
It would also make you useless as your term comes to an end. Political capital and IOUs are the currency in the capitol
theragu40@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
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.
Wrench@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
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.
theragu40@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
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.
bobman@unilem.org · 11 pts · 2y
Can't we just vote for younger candidates?
Doesn't make sense to subvert the will of the people when they clearly support this.
Also, her age isn't what makes her shit. She's a corporate democrat just looking out for different rich people.
LethalSmack@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 2y
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
bobman@unilem.org · 4 pts · 2y
Then vote for independents, or people whose parties don't pull that shit.
LethalSmack@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
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.
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Cornel West laughing…
kittenbridgeasteroid@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 2y
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.
bobman@unilem.org · 4 pts · 2y
Alright, then these problems don't get solved.
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Now, you’re getting it.
kittenbridgeasteroid@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 2y
You are correct. Voting isn't going to solve this problem.
Melpomene@kbin.social · 0 pts · 2y
AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social · 1 pts · 2y
Second least worst in most cases
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
You're absolutely right.
Collectively we vote for the representation we deserve.
knobbysideup@lemm.ee · 16 pts · 2y
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.
bobman@unilem.org · 4 pts · 2y
In a true democracy, we'd have direct voting.
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.
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
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?
bobman@unilem.org · 3 pts · 2y
That's fine. Just don't complain when the people you elect go against what you think is right.
Personally, I think direct voting would result in people voting for the matters they care about, while ignoring the ones they don't.
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
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.
kittenbridgeasteroid@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 2y
I really think we need to amend the constitution to allow a true democratic vote of no confidence for all federally elected positions.
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
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.
Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world · 55 pts · 2y
Can we not be ruled by geriatrics anymore?
WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Geriatocracy
vamp07@lemm.ee · 54 pts · 2y
I’m angry at her, but more angry at the voters that reelect her. Get new blood into these positions.
Pistcow@lemm.ee · 27 pts · 2y
Two party system that the party gets to choose who runs.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 2y
While that does suck, there are options in the primary. So you can vote her out without voting for a Republican, if that's anathema/unrealistic in her district.
aegis_sum@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Only if there is a primary. There often isn't much of a challenge to the incumbent.
Pistcow@lemm.ee · 6 pts · 2y
Also, Bernie Sanders. If they don't want one particular person to win the primary, they'll make sure it works out that way.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com · -1 pts · 2y
Should be anathema in every district.
Fades@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 2y
Fuck this horrible bitch. She fucking enriches herself via a marriage of her position and decision making with the stock market.
Fucking disgusting, no fucking politician that votes on policy should be allowed to trade stocks.
GET THE FUCK OUT AND STAY OUT YOU GERIATRIC FUCKING CORRUPT TRAITOR
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · -48 pts · 2y
Settle down, trumper.
HerrLewakaas@feddit.de · 46 pts · 2y
Nothing to do with Trumper, he's right. Just like Trump should go to prison along with anyone who helped him on Jan 6
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · -45 pts · 2y
You agree with this crap that person posted? --> (GET THE FUCK OUT AND STAY OUT YOU GERIATRIC FUCKING CORRUPT TRAITOR) NO. He/she/they are NOT right.
time_lord@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 2y
You can dislike Nancy Pelosi and not be a Trumper. They are not mutually exclusive.
academician@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 2y
Yeah. I hate Nancy Pelosi. I hate Trump MORE, but I hate him more than just about anyone. Pelosi is still a garbage person.
CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world · 0 pts · 2y
Okay, but "traitor"? Let's not devalue the word by throwing it around at everyone who engages in systemic graft.
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · -30 pts · 2y
Sure. But the statement made by the user I was responding to was pure trumper BS.
Snowpix@lemmy.ca · 22 pts · 2y
I don't see how what they said has anything to do with supporting Trump, Pelosi is corrupt and too old. You should focus your anger on actual Trump cultists.
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · -14 pts · 2y
They accused her of being a traitor. Read the all caps portion of the trumpist rant.
30mag@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · -12 pts · 2y
It's up to her and her constituents. But she IS NOT a traitor.
Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 2y
I'm a lifelong dem and I generally agree with the sentiment, minis the name-calling on his part. Her shady stock market trades are problematic at best, and we need young blood in the game. I'm hoping for a strong contender against her and I think many folks feel the same.
radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2y
You're what's wrong with politics these days. You don't have to be fully locked in to one side you know?
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2y
f*ck trumpism
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works · 37 pts · 2y
Stocks aren't going to inside trade themselves! Get out of the way you old cunt. Hopefully someone primaries her and the people in SF vote her out. Still worse to have a Republican in the seat but jfc this is infuriating.
SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 2y
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.
Huxley75@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
Blues and Greens...just like the Byzantines
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
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.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -9 pts · 2y
Because there is no corruption. Right wing conspiracy theories aren't fact
winterayars@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 2y
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.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -9 pts · 2y
"the whole system is corrupt"
Take off your tinfoil
squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 2y
There really needs to be age limits on government positions.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 2y
Term limits, too.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Trading limits, too.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Well, I’d say some sort of blind trust. That way, the only way they can influence their investments is making good decisions for the overall economy. Toss in some restrictions to require they avoid boomer-chip stocks. (Ie, s&p500 type investments would be okay, but not msft or any specific company. ETFs in general are too…easy to get around though.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Yeah, I agree but the problem with that is they can still time macro events that affect index funds and ETFs when they know about something big before the public, like covid.
It should be managed and timed by someone independent and the trust just pays a salary or allowance on a schedule.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
That’s the point of the BLIND trust.
They’re not making the trades. They don’t even see where things are. they can’t time trade’s because they don’t make investment decisions. At all.
They can still invest by dumping cash into an account and somebody managing it for them. Like the 401k managers the poors get :)
Homestarcraft@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
We do have age limits, but only minimum age. Any time there's a min age, there needs to be a corresponding max age.
KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
But then again Bernie Sanders has done a lot to help "wake up" the minds of many millennials and zoomers.
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee · 5 pts · 2y
He's also too old imo
WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
And some psychiatric tests, to see if she still has all the necessary faculties for decisions. The cognitive decay is as sure as death and taxes
danhab99@programming.dev · 32 pts · 2y
TOO OLD
Pistcow@lemm.ee · 31 pts · 2y
She's not the worst, but as I was reading, I thought she was dead until I made it to "seeks re-election"...
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
That’s what the plastics are for.. they never die…
verdantbanana@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 2y
another canidate question what has your past politics done for me locally? even nationally? if the answer is unsure or maybe some tv propaganda answer that was fed to you then why do they deserve votes
GiddyGap@lemm.ee · 15 pts · 2y
You don't think Pelosi has done anything to advance the Democratic agenda? I don't live in her district, so I'm not sure about locally, but I do think she's been highly influential nationally, and I personally think she has done a good job.
That being said, her district is safe Democratic even if she doesn't run. She should retire, enjoy the rest of her life with her family and leave feeling good about her accomplishments. It's someone else's job to carry on the work.
Gargantu8@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
ZenkorSoraz@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2y
She also helped pass loads of legislation in Obama and Biden's first term.
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2y
Absolutely
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Gargantu8@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Gargantu8@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2y
That was half a decade ago.
TurboDiesel@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 2y
Nice disingenuous framing there. That's 2 elections. Pelosi needs to go but saying shit like that doesn't help anyone.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
Would you perfer I pointed instead to it being about 1,825 days ago?
TurboDiesel@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Why? A congressional term is 2 years. A Senate term is 6 years. Saying "it was x years/days/weeks ago" is totally unhelpful to the larger conversation. It's reductive for no reason. And I think we both know you chose "hAlF a DeCaDe" for gravitas.
Now, if you had said something like "Pelosi hasn't sponsored any major legislation since x", sure. Let's talk. Honestly, fact is she's a fundraising dynamo. I fucking hate it, but that's the framework we're working in. She brings in money and is thus valuable to the DNC. In an ideal world she'd be replaced with a progressive who isn't an octogenarian. But that's clearly not where we are yet.
Gargantu8@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
30mag@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Fades@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2y
Well we sure know she used her position to advance her wallet
But yeah go off, defend this geriatric corrupt traitor. She’s not fucking special she’s a literal enemy of the people due to said corruption
GiddyGap@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Keeping it classy, I see.
GiddyGap@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
GiddyGap@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
malloc@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 2y
Whatever happened to “just fuck off to your third home in the Hamptons and become a philanthropist” retirement path for these people?
She and her family rich af. Just pass the torch and support some other upstart. Fucking power hungry assholes.
perviouslyiner@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
Flashoflight@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 2y
We need to shut down this senior center. I'm tired of this. Let's get some fresh ideas in this place.
UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 2y
muther fucker, get these old farts outta here.
Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 2y
HEY REPUBLICANS:
I'm as left leaning as they come and this old bitch should retire. This is one of the many many many differences between us. All you care about is winning, like this is some type of fucking football game, and I care about is what's best for our country.
elscallr@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2y
Apparently not in California, home to both Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein.
LemmyFeed@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 2y
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.
dethb0y@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 2y
We seriously need age limits for elected officials, it's absolutely absurd to have an octogenarian in a position of authority like that.
While we're at it, term limits for congress would be nice - 19 terms is absolutely ridiculous.
generalterrestrial@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 2y
Didn't Ruth teach these geriatric roadblocks anything?!?
verdantbanana@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2y
maybe US voters who should take more than colors and letters into consideration such as job resume over the years, what are they financially invested in, past examples of experience, et cetera
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 2y
Someone fucking primary her ass
KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Her district is jam packed full of the most elite liberals in the country. They love her. She's one of them. Realistically, the only one who'd replace her would be a carbon copy of her.
ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 2y
"Liberals" meaning fiscally conservative establishment donors whose social views are centrist or indifferent at best.
KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Yes, liberals. They're all cut from the same cloth. Right-wingers who'll wear a pride shirt in June.
reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Careful now, the libs will start calling you a tankie ! 😂
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Snapz@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2y
No.
Boomers, agnostic of any party affiliation, have brain worms.
SeaJ@lemm.ee · 12 pts · 2y
She is the generation before boomers: the silent generation.
RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
Not better.
jcit878@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
they are.
doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing anything other than enjoying their remaining years not running countries
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2y
Holy crap when I saw the headline at first I thought it was an obit
bradorsomething@ttrpg.network · 15 pts · 2y
If she pulls a McConnell I’m claiming copyright on “Nance in a Trance.”
USSEthernet@startrek.website · 5 pts · 2y
With ants in her pants
Smacks@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 2y
Oh fuck off with the dinosaurs
Leperhero@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 2y
Wonder how her husbands portfolio has been doing since she left.
Any significant gains? Does he really have that midas touch without her fortunate position.
Thetimefarm@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 2y
Lol the hammer attack would have been a great exit strategy. Oh well would you look at that, ever since my husband got his head beat in with a hammer he just can't seem to pick stocks as well.
theslackernews@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
I think it got hammered lately. Too soon?
ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee · 11 pts · 2y
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
Nath@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 2y
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.
reallynotnick@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Wouldn't she be 86, not 88? House term length is just 2 years, so that term would end Jan 3rd 2027 and her birthday is March 26, 1940
(Not saying 86 is young, just want to be accurate)
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Then the younger generation should vote and often
jray4559@lemmy.sdf.org · 11 pts · 2y
Well, if you want her to stop being in Congress, you know what to do in the primaries.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 2y
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.
3FingersOfMilk@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
That's.... eye-opening
winterayars@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2y
Pelosi in particular isn't just old but is also showing some signs of seriously impaired memory at the least.
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 2y
Trump is only 5 years younger, convicted of rape, facing 91 criminal felony charges and is running for re-election.
kerrypacker@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Instead of being anti red or anti blue how about you be anti fuckwit?
aidan@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 2y
Trump was not convicted of rape.
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 2y
Yes indeed he was. He was found to be GUILTY of raping E Jean Carroll
aidan@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2y
No, he was not. You are spreading misinformation. He was found to liable for rape. A conviction is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, liable is more likely than not guilty. This is not pedantic, this is the difference between decades in jail and not.
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2y
He raped E Jean Carroll -- period. You can worship rapist trump all you like. Go ahead.
aidan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
That's not what you said. You said he was convicted of rape, that's not true. If you take pointing out a factual inaccuracy as worshipping Trump you're just as much a tribalist as those on Jan. 6
Ganbat@lemmy.fmhy.net · 2 pts · 2y
Technically right because it was a civil case rather than a criminal case. He was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.
Chariotwheel@kbin.social · 10 pts · 2y
This is kinda the national form of the village elder.
reddig33@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
Permanently Deleted
CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world · 9 pts · 2y
Boy I was really hoping that headline had a different ending.
AbackDeckWARLORD@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 2y
There should be age limits in politics. Such as retirement age minus minimum voting age. It would be 67-18 in the US. Make it so you can’t run again after you exceeded the limit.
bobman@unilem.org · 9 pts · 2y
Democrats and republicans are just looking out for different rich people.
If we ever want this nation to improve, we need to focus on independents. Party lines need to die.
MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 7 pts · 2y
Democrats are a very frustrating party to be with. The alternative is 50 years out of date, racists, homophobic assholes, so you're stuck with democrats. So they put up the worst fucking candidates and we're just stuck with them because if we don't vote for them it's voting for some backwards asshole.
Worse is republicans think we love these people. No we fucking don't, get these old people out and get me someone who represents me. They're just the lesser of two evils
ArugulaZ@kbin.social · 8 pts · 2y
"We are gathered here today to honor the memory of Nancy Pelosi, who-"
"Wait, no! I'm still running for Senate in 2032! I just switched to the Zombie Party!"
"...I told you guys this should have been a closed casket funeral."
WarmSoda@lemm.ee · 8 pts · 2y
Both sides are the same
Age
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Skeksis need to retire, not collapse into dust while holding on to the royal scepter.
Noscharhar@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
The land is dying, and the Skeksis continue to drain its life force
vamp07@lemm.ee · 7 pts · 2y
People need to ask why incumbents almost always win even if there are so many valid reasons for them to move on. The answer is pretty simple. $$$
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 2y
oldbaldgrumpy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Can both the right and left agree to start electing people in their 40s or 50s for a change?
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Yeah, fuck these old, out of touch assholes who keep clinging to power and refuse to let the next generation come in.
Glad I stopped donating to the assholes a decade ago but fuck them all.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y
“Well I Think, I could use a good fuck”…. Pelosi maybe.
m750@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Primary her.
Ryan213@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
If the money and perks are good, why not??
severien@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2y
Her net worth is like $100 million, I really doubt she seeks reelection for the money.
NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social · 13 pts · 2y
Those insider trading perks are just too good to give up
GreenMario@lemm.ee · 8 pts · 2y
If they made $0 for the rest of their lives they'd still be rich by natural death.
This is a high score run, nothing more.
HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
It's the American way.
JasSmith@kbin.social · 8 pts · 2y
Her husband and his company profit handsomely from her insider knowledge.
Ryan213@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
She's trying to get to $200M, obviously.
JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
Yeah, cut congressional salaries to $10k a year and see how long the old folks stick around. Eliminates career politicians, too.
sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 2y
Then the only people who can actually be congresspeople will be the ones who are already rich. Public service should pay enough that those who work in government shouldn't need a second source of income to provide for their families. Paying politicians $10k a year will only incentivize them to accept bribes from lobbyist and corporations, leading to career politicians.
Deceptichum@kbin.social · 5 pts · 2y
Unlike today where they get paid so much they don’t accept bribes from lobbyists and corporations, leading to career politicians.
sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2y
I never said that if you pay them enough then they won't take bribes. You could pay them a billion dollars a year and there'll still be some corrupt bastards looking for bribes.
What I was saying was that if you don't pay them anything, then it will be impossible for regular, working class people to ever become politicians.
Ryan213@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
Set it to minimum wage and see how quickly that raise goes up. Lol
baldingpudenda@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
These old career politicians don't become millionaires from their federal salaries.they have PACs and get paid to be guest speakers. After they quit, they get paid millions a year to be consultants or some bullshit title VP where they only meet once a year to justify "working".
Manchin has a yatch and he's from one of the poorest states. Boats in general are a huge money sink and this asshole has a boat with enough square footage to be a regular house, 1500.
Whenever I think of West Virginia I think of rundown early 20th century homes and barefoot kids in overalls. I know it's a stereotype, but check out that video. It's so sad that they fight so hard for the coal mines that killed 3 generations because it's the only steady income in the area.
I don't condone killing politicians, but I do think tar and feathering should become fashionable again. If you're too old to outrun your constituents or survive your chickening, you're to old to represent them.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com · 0 pts · 2y
hahahh its cute you think their salaries are where their money comes from
Poob@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 2y
Usually these style titles are for deaths, and I got excited for a moment
xc2215x@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Not feeling great about this.
halfempty@kbin.social · 4 pts · 2y
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!
pyromaniac_donkey@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Roundcat@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 2y
DINOs out
Companion1666@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
US politics really romanticizing elderly abuse.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 2y
atempuser23@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
WorldWideLem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
COOL
DigitalFrank@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
She probably doesn't want to hang around the house and watch underwear hammer fights.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
She doesn’t want to give up hubby’s hot streak on stock trading.
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
KingStrafeIV@midwest.social · 5 pts · 2y
She's had years to train up a successor, at this point it's just blind power hungry arrogance.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
To your first paragraph, decline often comes suddenly. Of course with a two year term, and hundreds of representatives, it's not as critical of a risk as a 6 year senator, but still.
recapitated@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Great
Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2y
njm1314@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
Ugh!
NullaFacies@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GozmjcrcP3w
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com · -1 pts · 2y
what a cunt. do us all a favor and die already.
verdantbanana@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y
American Dissident and unable to vote here WHY THE F##K DO Y'ALL PEOPLE KEEP VOTING THESE F##KS BACK IN ? IS IT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO B###H ABOUT LATER ONLINE? talking to y'all will definitly vote biden this fall because his name does not start with T sounds like Pakleds voting
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -2 pts · 2y
Why was it necessary to include her age in this headline?
LurkNoMore@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2y
Because she's a dinosaur and her age is very relevant to the situation.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -7 pts · 2y
"dinosaur"
That's delusional talk
dhtseany@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2y
She. Is. 83. Years. Old.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 2y
And?
LurkNoMore@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
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.
How you think this is OK is insane!
freeman@lemmy.pub · 7 pts · 2y
Because cognitive ability and reasoning declines with age after a certain point. Not sure what that point is but it’s definately in the 70s and 80s
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -5 pts · 2y
a) are you a doctor b) that's ageism not fact c) there's plenty of 40 year olds in congress that are worse
pyromaniac_donkey@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2y
Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 2y
Damn bro calm down, that level of hate against any human is concerning. I absolutely think she should be voted out and go enjoy her retirement, but wishing that level of ill upon another person is worrying.
Grant_M@lemmy.ca · -9 pts · 2y
Nancy Pelosi is awesome. Best politician on the planet and the fascist GOP are terrified of her.
Rapidcreek@reddthat.com · -10 pts · 2y
We do legitimately have a gerontocracy problem and this doesn't help, but at the same time as long as she's capable of doing the job I can't in good conscience object either. The beauty of our system of government is anyone can run. You don't like her, run against her or STFU and quit screaming at the clouds.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
You act like primaries are fair...
Even the DNC stopped doing that years ago, why do you still believe it?
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
Deceptichum@kbin.social · 4 pts · 2y
No, no. You see buttery emails and stuff, they never deliberately worked against Bernie to ensure Clinton won. Totally it was all the people voting.
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
brings up Bernie in current year
😴
Deceptichum@kbin.social · 4 pts · 2y
Pretends the same corruption magically no longer exists
🇺🇸
ares35@kbin.social · 2 pts · 2y
if the dnc didn't like fucking up primaries, bernie's vp would be the front-runner in 2024. oh, and the country would be in a lot better shape than it is now, too.
i hope california can come up with a candidate that can challenge pelosi in the primaries.
NounsAndWords@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y
I'm not saying the DNC isn't biased. But it looks like that was a legal arguments made by lawyers. Generally, they make every argument they can fit into their brief.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Rapidcreek@reddthat.com · -3 pts · 2y
Conflating
sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2y
Shahid Buttar was a very good candidate running against Pelosi. DNC wasn't happy and the idiot Dem voters from the District just fell in line behind the incumbent as both party's voters tend to do. It's just a fucked up, dysfunctional system we have going here.
Rapidcreek@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 2y
Lookee there. The candidate didn't get the support or votes and lost. Therefore it's a dysfunctional system. If you added "and it must be destroyed" you could join the Republican party. Candidates lose. It happen every election.
sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2y
It's a dysfunctional system because of the way it is. If you can't see it...well, I don't know what to tell you. I would love to get a pair of those rose-tinted ignorance-is-bliss glasses.
Rapidcreek@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 2y
All I know, friend, is that the same system has worked for over 100 years.
BertramDitore@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
True, anyone can technically run. But in practice, a fresh-faced new candidate going up against a well-funded incumbent will very very rarely win. The few times it has happened the incumbent either didn’t take the threat seriously (AOC), or the incumbent was involved in a big scandal.
For your well-intentioned version of America to exist in reality, we’d need to do a few things: overturn Citizens United, require that all elections be fully publicly funded, ban private political donations, and stop letting elected officials draw their own maps. Until then, the gerontocracy will go on.
Rapidcreek@reddthat.com · -3 pts · 2y
You give me a dozen reasons why can't win. Maybe your the wrong person for the job.
Someday I'll tell you the story of 7 of 11 and Obama.
BertramDitore@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Oh I'm definitely the wrong person for the job. And I'm not running, see above.
ABCDE@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Not sure about you but I don't have the time or money to run.
Rapidcreek@reddthat.com · -1 pts · 2y
But you do live in the district? Excellent. Now get some support and raise some money. Make sure to talk to the party of choice. Get some petitions signed. You have to work to get on a ballot.