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

  • Hairyblue@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine all the people,

        Living for today.

        Imagine your representatives,

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

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • TheFriar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

              • TowardsTheFuture
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      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

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        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.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.