I think Democrats subservience to wealthy donors is even more our downfall.
Every wealthy donor who doesn’t want the government packed full of fascists should be pushing their representatives for significant and meaningful campaign finance reform.
It’s too bad that they’d be giving up some of their influence, but at this point, everyone should be able to see that it’s becoming a matter of physical safety.
ANYONE who says that this is “ageist” should be forced to give up ALL their technology and advancements from the last 150 years and given the consequences for it. Any complaints? We will call you ageist and punish you. Seriously, ANYONE who makes this argument when it comes to politicians is less than useless. They should be mocked and laughed at
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Anyone here running for anything?
If you guys really want this revolution you keep talking about, forget the presidency…for now. Social change begins at the bottom. The country has turned too damn far right to make any progress nationally. Focus on city council, planning commissions, especially school and library boards. Change will flow upward storm there.
So the answer is to be ageist instead of administering civics and leadership ability test to the prospective candidates
Got it. Swap bigotry for bigotry.
Way to do better, people
A bunch of rich 80-year-olds should not be running our country. It’s why the response to Trump has been so anemic: they’re too comfortable and they can’t be bothered.
In other words, it cannot be exclusively one narrow demographic. That’s not ageism; that’s just common sense.
What is it going to take before people like to join reality? A sitting member of Congress with full-blown dementia? We had that in Dianne Feinstein. A president who can’t function past 6 pm or speak without a teleprompter? We had that with Biden. Democrats dropping dead in office? The Republicans have expanded their House lead this term because three Democrats dropped dead. Our country is collapsing under an incompetent gerontocracy, and you think pointing that out is bigotry? Get a fucking grip, dude.
Reading the article I don’t see any support for your argument. It just seems like a arsenal strawman.
The article talks about getting more young people into political positions, and about having politicians generally stay in office until they die of old age is causing political stagnation.
It’s not like it argues you can’t serve past a certain age, just that it shouldn’t be an exclusive old-people’s club.
Stop gaslighting.
If that’s what this article was, that’s what it would say.
But you And I read the article. Time to take the keys from grandpa, he squinted at the t. V .
That’s what it says.
Keep being the problem then. You’re out of touch with the supermajority of people by 70. Stop fucking lying to yourself and others.
The difference is that there are only so many of these elected political jobs. The only way for younger people to get direct experience is to run for them. And particularly for Congress, where there are only 435 seats nationwide and their districts were likely drawn to favor one party or another – in many districts, the primary is the election.
Yes, these people are advocating for the older generation to step aside. But even if they don’t, they are advocating that a healthy party should have meaningful primaries for every position, and have every incumbent (including those older politicians) actively defend their seats if they want to keep them. I bet that if an older politician is with it enough to win a contested primary, even these folks would support them in the general election. (Plus, that losing candidate would have had experience running that contested election, so they can do better next time.)
Bottom line, it’s basically the exact same intentional misinterpretation that the right does with DEI.
IE what DEI actually calls for: Look for candidates everywhere, give a shot to them all regardless of race or background.
What they act like it is: “You have to pick the minority candidate no matter how underqualified he/she is”.
Same concept as the left wants for our candidates. What we want isn’t an auto force out the old guys… we want actual fair competitions that picks candidates by their actual abilities and skills, rather than just the assumption that the person who’s had that seat for 30 years, should keep it over a new person that wants the job.
It’s not different. .it’s lobbying for unelected people to decide in the shadows what should be done loudly on television by people we directly voted for
Anything else is trump. 2.0
No, it’s the exact opposite of what you claim, it’s encouraging young people to run for office even if an older incumbent is in the seat, and let voters decide in meaningful primaries.
Get the fuck out of here. Bigotry is judging people before you know them. We know who the democratic leadership is. There are plenty of old progressives, and almost none of them are running for something. You need young people to get involved in order to replace the old people who have died.
A:“I propose we buy the military $1 million dollars worth of 200-lb canons”
B:“No grandpa it’s not 1865 anymore”
A:“That’s AgIsT!!¡!¡¡”
