this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
363 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
2767 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hairyblue@kbin.social 122 points 1 year ago (6 children)

She is too old to run again. Like Biden, Trump, many others passed retirement age. Let go of power and enjoy your retirement.

[–] hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Always nice when all my reps are backwards boomer jackasses that don't make any attempt to represent me or my generation. I wish all congresspersons be forced to retire and prevented from reelection when they reach a certain age.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hell, Gen X barely have any representatives. Boomers still run the place.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Meh, we don't bother to run. We got kneecapped as far as us being leaders is concerned, being bookended by two much larger generations.

I'm only even considering running for city council in 26 because several of my neighbors have suggested I do so independently of each other.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Always nice when all my reps are backwards boomer jackasses

Nancy Peloso is older than a Boomer. She's from the generation before that, the Silent Generation.

[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Silent indeed. If fucking only.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine all the people,

Living for today.

Imagine your representatives,

Voting for term limits to cut off their own money faucets.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Term limits just give corporations more power because you're limiting experience. Corporate funded Special Interest Groups will be writing all the laws if you impose term limits.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d argue the opposite. It’s a long known business rule that it costs way more to get new clients than it is to continue doing business with. The longer someone stays in office, the more likely it is they have a past relationship with someone trying to influence them. Oh and by the way, special interest groups already write laws.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

When you go to get surgery do you want a rookie doctor or a seasoned doctor with experience?

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is an entirely different concept. Comparing politics to medicine is beyond nonsensical. People go into politics idealistic. The longer they spend in there, the more entrenched in the insider games they become. How many of our problems are borne from politicians protecting their own jobs over doing what’s right? How many of our problems are thanks to entrenched politicos who’ve lost touch with real life?

It’s almost like the opposite is true of politics than any actual job: experience is almost a detriment. Because the “experience” you gain in that world is not how to more efficiently and justly serve your constituents. It’s to more expertly hobknob and fundraise and keep your job.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The analogy has some merit in that politics is a job that takes experience and skill. Look at Biden - he's working with a divided government but he's still accomplished more than most presidents - more than Obama, our last Democratic president, by some margin - and much of it has been bipartisan. Whatever your feelings on him, he's an experienced politician who knows how to work things through the houses.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay…but look at biden’s long and pretty problematic history. In his long tenure, he’s racked up quite the laundry list of entirely wrong-side-of-history moments. It’s incredibly rare to get an ideologue who stays idealistic and continues to fight for the people. Bernie sanders is literally the only example in our…entire history as a country? Unless someone can prove otherwise.

Not to mention, the president doesn’t really work bills through congress. Yes, of course there is influence, but the whips and lobbyists are the ones peddling the influence—which goes to exactly what we’re saying. There is a long-standing and deeply flawed “established order” to American politics. How do people stay in office? They make the right friends in donors, they get some empty applause-line accomplishments, or they pander like hell. Usually all three. But most important among them is protecting their asses from the party, and staying on their good side. Look at how much time is spent fundraising. There is no way that doesn’t entirely warp your perception on what is important over time. When these congresspeople have 95% of their direct interaction with constituents coming from high level donor phonecalls…that definitely has an effect.

Biden’s long history is only a selling point for the people he’s friends with, and vice versa. Because all his sway comes from the long held relationships with OTHER people who shouldn’t be in politics anymore. Trading favors as old friends isn’t a selling point to no term limits.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Biden has a long history, and I agree he hasn't always made the right call, but he took to the Senate in 73, and he's voted on and sponsored an awful lot of legislation. Find me someone who can do a job like that for 50 years without making an error in judgement and we should canonize them. He's also become more enlightened on a number of issues, articulate why, and changed his opinion (and how he votes) on them.

But I wasn't meaning to hold Biden up as the guy to emulate, I'm just saying that his long experience is much of what makes him effective - he knows how to work the system. We should get rid of people who aren't effective or are effective at doing the wrong thing, but I don't think we should get rid of an effective person who does the right thing just because of the number of birthdays they've had.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

First, I’d MUCH rather someone who knows how to use the newest technology to best serve me as new tech helps a LOT more than some old dude who can’t even keep a steady hand anymore. This isn’t like 18 year old vs 35 year old, She’s 83, we’re way past the “with experience”. Plus plenty of old ass doctors are very stuck in their ways and will mistreat shit.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You think politicians actually write legislation?

Most don't even read it...

It's written by staffers in their 20s, think tanks, or even just straight up by their donors. There might be a handful that actually write their own proposals.

Their experience is working for decades in a corrupt system, and that counts for jack shit if we change the system.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

That's assuming both that parties don't exist and that all newly elected politicians are newbies and there's no rotation between different offices. In reality parties would keep institutional knowledge and people would bring personal experience from other offices around.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah she's 83 years old and could be worth $170 million. I think a normal person at some point would just want to take it easy a live their life for a bit. IMO it's kind of ghoulish to have all these 70+ year olds still power-tripping just for the sake of it.

Like Strom Thurmond, who left the Senate in 2003 at 100 years old, and then pretty much died immediately afterwards.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pretty sure most of these people would die immediately after retiring. Their thirst for power keeps their body working or something. That's the only reasonable explanation of why in the flying fuck an 80 year old multimillionaire would choose to continue working.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Oh, I thought their longevity was due to the adrenochrome. /s

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I have employees who are way past retirement age and could have retired financially ages ago, but they really like what they do and they worry they'd just get bored sitting at home.

I'm nearing retirement, and I'm going to actually do it, but part of that is that I committed to my wife that I would and we'd go off and do stuff. Still, I honestly understand why some people don't. I could easily live another 25 years, and my job really keeps my juices going. Some days I don't want to get up and go to work, but the thought of never going in again is daunting.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Imagine being so rich you can go do whatever you want for the rest of your days, and choosing more work. Wtf?! What is wrong with these people? I'd be kicking it on a beach if I had their money and was retirement age

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago
[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the thing. People in power never let go voluntarily.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

You know what's funny, George Washington, the OG, did. Wish they could follow his example since we're all taught to masturbate our rock-hard patriotism to the founding fathers in school.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

With someone like Feinstein, I think the argument against them is that their age has reduced their ability to do their job effectively. Pelosi still seems pretty effective to me for what she tries to do. My issue with her is that she's not very progressive. You could make an argument that that's a function of age, but Bernie Sanders, who also seems effective but is for sure progressive, is 82.

I've never had a problem with someone doing any job at any age as long as they are effective. I manage a software engineering team, and my best, sharpest developer - the one most everyone goes to for help - is around 80. He loves what he does and my whole team is better with him on it. I've known other people who declined at a much earlier age.

So I hate setting an artificial age limit, but I wish we had some kind of test out performance measure that would force people out who can't do the job.