Anyone gonna talk about mandate limits at some point? Why can they be senators/representatives for life? Shouldn't it be limited to a certain number of times, like say 3 or 4 max? I'm being generous because I'd like to see one term only and one position only per life ... it's not like we're going to run out of people in a country with more than 300M people ...
That's a valid question. Serving in Congress is supposed to be a civic duty not a career. Many of the old guard Lakers have benefitted from a system that didn't prevent them from getting rich off of things like insider trading and corruption.
My first thought goes to Sen. Bob Mendez sitting on the Foreign Relations committee getting arrested for taking bribes from Egyptian leaders. This all went down in the last year or so and it makes you wonder how many others do the same thing.
Good deal but why now? Why was it ok to go treasure hunting for WMDs with the butchers of Baghdad? Or killing Medicare For All for Obama Care? Why not when she let Cory Bush and Jamal Bowman go down like Build Back Better? She’s had a long career as you note steeped in the kleptocratic politics that caused Democrats to leave living wages, rent insecurity, affordable housing, nutrition supplements, student debt, child poverty, and guaranteed basic income off this year’s election platform despite trailing in the polls for the whole year.
Isn't that another assumption of yours? How do you know they weren't on board with the other issues? You may have talk to them all, I don't know, but I didn't and I don't assume what people thought in the past. The only thing that we can do that way is with members of Congress by looking at their voting history so we can hold them accountable to what they did in the past ... as for regular citizens, we don't really have a database of what they thought on all the issues of the past so we should just assume good faith and accept the support when it comes without gatekeeping the protest to those who have demonstrated support throughout time. That's my two cents.
No worries, I always assume good faith by default until proven otherwise 🙂.
The op to this thread seemed to be criticizing your call for accountability of the old guard as coming too late while pointing out such call like yours was missing before at the time of WMDs and Obamacare (see their post).
I'm pointing out that assuming you were okay with geriatric members of the congress before because they read you decrying it now is nothing but their assumption. You haven't said that you just started being concerned by that problem, you didn't say it is a problem now but wasn't in the past. The op author in this thread just read all that in the negative of your post (think photo negative, aka mirror image) and that is a dangerous practice to do that because it means imparting thoughts onto people that they didn't express but that we imagine they must have based on how we interpret what they are saying.
Another clear example of that recently is all the zonist calling anti-palestinian-genocide calls antisemitic assuming not wanting to see Palestine destroyed meant wanting Israel to be ... whereas two things can be true:
- one can oppose the genocide while also decrying Hamas terrorism;
- one can oppose geriatric members of Congress now while also having done so in the past.
I see. I have deciried it in the past. In the article I mentioned as 50-year-old, I've never felt represented by most of the lawmakers older than I am. It speaks to how younger generations feel that way today. I hope this helps clarify.
Also, quick side note. Substack has been acting up all morning and it made it appear as the comment I responded to was directed at me and not the op. My apologies for any confusion.
Anyone gonna talk about mandate limits at some point? Why can they be senators/representatives for life? Shouldn't it be limited to a certain number of times, like say 3 or 4 max? I'm being generous because I'd like to see one term only and one position only per life ... it's not like we're going to run out of people in a country with more than 300M people ...
That's a valid question. Serving in Congress is supposed to be a civic duty not a career. Many of the old guard Lakers have benefitted from a system that didn't prevent them from getting rich off of things like insider trading and corruption.
My first thought goes to Sen. Bob Mendez sitting on the Foreign Relations committee getting arrested for taking bribes from Egyptian leaders. This all went down in the last year or so and it makes you wonder how many others do the same thing.
Virtually all of them tbh
Good deal but why now? Why was it ok to go treasure hunting for WMDs with the butchers of Baghdad? Or killing Medicare For All for Obama Care? Why not when she let Cory Bush and Jamal Bowman go down like Build Back Better? She’s had a long career as you note steeped in the kleptocratic politics that caused Democrats to leave living wages, rent insecurity, affordable housing, nutrition supplements, student debt, child poverty, and guaranteed basic income off this year’s election platform despite trailing in the polls for the whole year.
Agree with you the older politicians should be mentoring and bringing in young leaders who aren’t singing a corporate tune.
Badly written, I meant the voters on board with AOC getting appointed, why weren’t they on board with the other issues?
A lot of Democrat lawmakers believe generational change is in order. That probably played a big role.
Isn't that another assumption of yours? How do you know they weren't on board with the other issues? You may have talk to them all, I don't know, but I didn't and I don't assume what people thought in the past. The only thing that we can do that way is with members of Congress by looking at their voting history so we can hold them accountable to what they did in the past ... as for regular citizens, we don't really have a database of what they thought on all the issues of the past so we should just assume good faith and accept the support when it comes without gatekeeping the protest to those who have demonstrated support throughout time. That's my two cents.
I wonder why you think opposing Pelosi now means that there was agreement before ... strange conclusion from reading this article if you ask me.
What do you mean by "agreement before"? I'm not sure what you're asking here. I ask in good faith.
No worries, I always assume good faith by default until proven otherwise 🙂.
The op to this thread seemed to be criticizing your call for accountability of the old guard as coming too late while pointing out such call like yours was missing before at the time of WMDs and Obamacare (see their post).
I'm pointing out that assuming you were okay with geriatric members of the congress before because they read you decrying it now is nothing but their assumption. You haven't said that you just started being concerned by that problem, you didn't say it is a problem now but wasn't in the past. The op author in this thread just read all that in the negative of your post (think photo negative, aka mirror image) and that is a dangerous practice to do that because it means imparting thoughts onto people that they didn't express but that we imagine they must have based on how we interpret what they are saying.
Another clear example of that recently is all the zonist calling anti-palestinian-genocide calls antisemitic assuming not wanting to see Palestine destroyed meant wanting Israel to be ... whereas two things can be true:
- one can oppose the genocide while also decrying Hamas terrorism;
- one can oppose geriatric members of Congress now while also having done so in the past.
I see. I have deciried it in the past. In the article I mentioned as 50-year-old, I've never felt represented by most of the lawmakers older than I am. It speaks to how younger generations feel that way today. I hope this helps clarify.
Also, quick side note. Substack has been acting up all morning and it made it appear as the comment I responded to was directed at me and not the op. My apologies for any confusion.