Skeksis need to retire, not collapse into dust while holding on to the royal scepter.
Oh for fucks sakes.
Fuck’s sake *
Yes. Fuck posses the sake.
Is it for the sake of just one fuck, or for all of the fucks?
One must consider both, the aggregate (greater fuck group) and the individual fuck as well.
She’s only one more reelection to lichdom.
We should turn her into a giant baby.
We need to find her phylactery first, otherwise she’ll always return.
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.
TESTIFY!Getting republicans to vote for
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.
That was the joke…
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.
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.
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.
Yet the republican party has no trouble keeping their dogs in line.
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.
Not sure about you but I don’t have the time or money to run.
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.
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.”
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.
brings up Bernie in current year
😴
Pretends the same corruption magically no longer exists
🇺🇸
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.
Conflating
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.
All I know, friend, is that the same system has worked for over 100 years.
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.
It was only their lawyers and the person running it at the time that said it, that doesn’t count!
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.
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.
Oh I’m definitely the wrong person for the job. And I’m not running, see above.
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.
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”
Well, she is the queen of congressional insider trading…
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? 👍
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.
Whatabouting is a waste of time. You are soeaking as if republicans gaf about facts
So how about we start paying attention to Republican tradings?
People are. See those red bars in the infographics you posted? Paying attention to trades made by Republicans and paying attention made by Democrats are not mutually exclusive (also illustrated by the infographics you posted). What are you trying to achieve with this whataboutism?
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.
I’m just pointing out the fact that people are always pointing at Pelosi but she’s not the biggest culprit
You mean that she wasn’t the most successful in 2022. Though, she was the only politician who had their own section in the 2022 report. https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/congress-trading-report-2022#what-about-pelosi
Different story in 2020, wasn’t it? This infographic includes members of the house only though. Insider trading in the senate may have been worse or better, depending on how you’re looking at it.
That’s her investments, not her gains.
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
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.
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.
I mention her trading because this is a post about her.
Corruption is corruption and it spans both chambers and all layers of government.
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?
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).
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
You’re basically espousing right wing talking points
Talking points fabricated by the shadowy, fascist organization known as… 60 Minutes.
Younger by two decades is still mid 60s/retirement age
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.
Both sides are the same
AgeShe’s not the worst, but as I was reading, I thought she was dead until I made it to “seeks re-election”…
That’s what the plastics are for… they never die…
This is kinda the national form of the village elder.
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
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)
Then the younger generation should vote and often
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.
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.
We need to put an age limit on political offices
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.
Yes, term limits are a much better solution as age restrictions can be a slippery slope.
It would also make you useless as your term comes to an end. Political capital and IOUs are the currency in the capitol
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.
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.
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
Second least worst in most cases
Then vote for independents, or people whose parties don’t pull that shit.
Cornel West laughing…
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.
deleted by creator
Alright, then these problems don’t get solved.
You are correct. Voting isn’t going to solve this problem.
Now, you’re getting it.
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.
You’re absolutely right.
Collectively we vote for the representation we deserve.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 really think we need to amend the constitution to allow a true democratic vote of no confidence for all federally elected positions.
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.
As a Dem, let me just say, please god no. We need younger people in Congress. It’s time to let go Nancy. I hope she gets primaried. Take Feinstein and Mcconnel with you on your way out.
Not feeling great about this.
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.
deleted by creator
