dazzlingclitgameOlder Dems are sick of hearing about "generational change"
Establishment Dems need to make way for younger and more progressive incumbents. It’s clear that they will continue to cling to power until they die before doing so though.
gAlienLifeformGreen and Menefee will go to a runoff in May. Green swatted away questions about the age factor on Wednesday, declaring, “I am generational change.”
Yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and say when you find yourself paraphrasing mother fucking Emperor Palpatine it’s time to stop being a senator
kurmudgeonOlder Dems: we want younger people to be more engaged in politics, the more younger people that vote, the better we do.
The population: we want younger people to be Democrats instead of old people.
Older Dems: when we said we wanted younger people, we didn’t mean like that.
Numinous_YlemBy young they meant candidates that are only in their 60’s
Those spry 60 year olds will really get the youth to the ballot boxes!
The silly thing is, those in their 60s and 50s are Generation X — you know, the generation with a lower population that boomers and millennials usually forget exist.
This is real, I’ve read articles about how Gen X is the next generation to fill government but come on…they’re in their 50’s+.
I’d love to see more government representation by people younger than 50, and who are far more in touch with the reality the working class has to face every day.
Too fucking bad… boo hoo… Time for the fossils to GO!
(And I’m a 'boomer myself, and can’t stand how out of touch and backwards looking most of my generation is… GTFO you old coots! FFS buy some beer and rent a boat and go fishing and do something worthwhile with what time you have left!)
I’ve always wanted the age of government office to be tied to the average age of stroke/heart attack in your state. Your ass is out at that age unless you can bring that number down through comprehensive healthcare reform.
Oooh I like this idea
Golden ticket!!
You mean up, right?
…
You mean up?
Yes, I’m a dummy.
RivalarrivalThere ya go: tie it to real world factors.
I had “social security retirement age” as my criteria. I want to retire some day. I want a candidate who represents my interests.
I do not want a candidate with the same work/life balance expectations as my dickhead boss.
Term limits and age limits plz
Also kill Citizens United thx
FuglyDuckand some form of ranked voting.
And maybe some form of nation-wide recall systems to deal with the fettermans of the world.
Capital gains tax reform. Companies should reinvest in production and research, not stock buybacks and golden parachutes. This could also curb enshitification.
Term limits don’t work.
Reversing Citizens United is a long haul. In the meantime, we need to find other ways of disrupting the dark money pipeline.
And maybe a ban for candidates that test in the Dark Triad range so at least we know any evil is incompetence, not malevolence
watsonJust one more midterm bro, I promise, we’ll get change we can believe in
sp3ctr4l
heyWhatsayThey were even listening?
Maybe they should go away, then
_lilithoh no the old fucks are “gearing up to push back” whatever will we do against their strongly worded letters
Oh the strongly worded letters are for when we want stuff. When it comes to entrenching geriatric rule for themselves, they’ll use every trick in the book to hold on to power!
CharlesDarwinI think it’s orchestrated, myself.
It seems nihilistic and doesn’t seem to have any real aim other than further dividing Democrats. There is nothing inherently good or bad about someone’s age (well, unless they haven’t fully developed the PFC - there is a reason there are age requirements at the lower end) when you are trying to determine if they are fit to lead.
Now, if people were to propose using more advanced screening techniques to catch things like Alzheimer’s or other problematic things (I’d be a fan of trying to screen out various traits that lead to really bad leadership, myself, but obviously implementation would have many problems and of course many detractors), that might make more sense. But no, we are listening to what sounds like petulant teenagers having tirades about older people and it’s rather boring. All of us were 14 once, but most of us evolved since then. The idea that you are only going to have representation from people who are in your “generation” is an incredibly silly and narcissistic one.
Lastly I keep saying this, but: this particular period of time is really not going to age very well if life extension and other breakthroughs come online.
There’s a difference between wanting more diverse representation and only wanting representation from one generation and I think you’re being dismissive about a real complaint from those of us being told to vote for the same old guard again and again.
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
I completely understand the deep frustration with certain individuals, for example, Schumer and Pelosi. But it has little to do with their age or the number of terms they have had, in my view. Things like this should be determined, by voters, on a case by case basis.
If people are really that animated about changing the guard, then they need to do the work and show up on primaries, whether that is going so far as running themselves, or working for campaigns, or at least voting. But arbitrarily preempting the choices that others may want to vote for if they like a candidate, regardless (or perhaps because) of age/years of experience seems very unwise.
I think it absolutely has to do with the number of terms they had when it’s clear they’re there to line their pockets instead of working for the working class. They’ve had ample time to work against the creep of fascism and they failed or are complicit. The fact that they’re throwing a fit over being pushed to make way for younger and more progressive candidates just reveals their selfishness.
If a viable candidate runs in the primary, and the voters show up, then that’s the opportunity to have the old guard pushed out. I don’t see any problem with that and it’s how it is supposed to work. What I object to is some kind of blanket rules about term limits or age limits. That removes the opportunity for voters to reward candidates they like.
There are term limits for other positions, why not here? What’s your objection to term limits?
I just don’t think term limits are anywhere near the panacea some people seem to think they are. I’ve heard crusty old conservatives mutter “term limits” about politics ever since I can remember. Almost in the same tone I hear some of them say “cull the herd” and “tort reform” these days. It just seems like some mantra to repeat.
And now I see others outside the conservasphere sometimes taking up this mantra. It strikes me as a distraction, if I’m honest. The real problem is money and legalized bribery and I don’t know what term limits would possibly accomplish, other than just having more people with no experience in these roles. There is nothing to say they could not be groomed by the likes of Thiel and just do self-dealing from minute one just because of their age or the number of terms they have had.
I’ve always been baffled by this heroic notion of a magical outsider, brought into politics, and simply by virtue of being an outsider that it would be a good thing. Politician is about the only endeavor where there is this odd wish to have a NON-expert in that position. The term limits mantra often seems to go hand in hand with the pining for the outsider thing. And I’ll just never get it.
Being a politician is like any other field, and requires expertise. I don’t see people pining for term limits on doctors, mechanics, plumbers, businessmen, dentists, etc., and I sure don’t see people signing up to be the first to have their teeth drilled by an outsider, just to “shake things up”.
Yeah. There are states with term limits now. They’re no better governed than states without them. Term limits are one of those obvious solutions that actually solve nothing.
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.
I want a candidate who shares that value.
A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.
We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.
Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.
Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.
It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.
If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.
When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.
That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.
Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.
I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.
Sounds like you have a set of work goals and that’s fine. I just don’t think that needs to be imposed on others who have very different ideas of how to get fulfillment from their work. If the average age of retirement is 62, that means people on average would have 17 years (or more) of life where they are legally prevented from doing the job they love, even if they serve the voters’ interests. I’d say many people would love to continue doing a job they love far past the age of 62, and they should be able to do so, not have some arbitrary law keeping them from that. Ageism is already quite rampant in the private sector; I’m not sure it should be codified into public service.
If you (or any voter) find instances of politicians not sharing your interests, by all means, vote them out.
IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture.
That’s the problem I’m trying to address: the workaholic culture among our representative bodies.
Do you just hit an age where you stop being able to comprehend you’re out of touch? Is that going to happen to all of us? I feel out of touch all the time already and I’m nowhere near the Congressional average…
Do you just hit an age where you stop being able to comprehend you’re out of touch?
No. You start out being out of touch and lack of accountability makes it worse every year.
Source: old as dirt, but still in touch.
The various generations are sick of hearing from older Democrats.
I want to retire some day. I want my representatives to share that value. If you’re going to be above the social security retirement age at the start of a term in a political office, you are not qualified to that office. I’ll support finishing out a term you have already started, but I am done voting for people who think it is important they work themselves into the fucking grave.
That’s easy, Congress will just raise the retirement age. The oligarchy wants that age raised anyway.
Let the old candidates argue that the retirement age needs to rise, while the young candidates argue that it needs to be lowered. Watch what happens when AARP voters start supporting candidates who actually want to retire, instead of these goddamn workaholic fossils.
I think you misunderstand that these old fucks aren’t working, they’re just collecting the paycheque because it’s easy money for them. They barely need to do anything and have assistants who tell them where to go and how to do everything. They don’t understand what hardwork is so they probably consider themselves workaholics, but reality knows they’re just useless.
I agree with everything except “misunderstand”. We’re completely on the same page.
They think that this is what “work” is, so their expectation is that this is what “workers” experience. They see no need or value in retirement. They don’t realize that they were already living as a retiree before they started campaigning.
“you’re going to deal with my generation until until we die, and we gave Congress and the house Medicare for ourselves so we can be around until we die of something incurable.”