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)
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.
Then the younger generation should vote and often
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.
She probably doesn’t want to hang around the house and watch underwear hammer fights.
She doesn’t want to give up hubby’s hot streak on stock trading.
Not feeling great about this.
Boy I was really hoping that headline had a different ending.
Wonder how her husbands portfolio has been doing since she left.
Any significant gains? Does he really have that midas touch without her fortunate position.
I think it got hammered lately. Too soon?
Lol the hammer attack would have been a great exit strategy. Oh well would you look at that, ever since my husband got his head beat in with a hammer he just can’t seem to pick stocks as well.
Yeah, fuck these old, out of touch assholes who keep clinging to power and refuse to let the next generation come in.
Glad I stopped donating to the assholes a decade ago but fuck them all.
“Well I Think, I could use a good fuck”…. Pelosi maybe.
I’m angry at her, but more angry at the voters that reelect her. Get new blood into these positions.
Two party system that the party gets to choose who runs.
While that does suck, there are options in the primary. So you can vote her out without voting for a Republican, if that’s anathema/unrealistic in her district.
Only if there is a primary. There often isn’t much of a challenge to the incumbent.
Also, Bernie Sanders. If they don’t want one particular person to win the primary, they’ll make sure it works out that way.
Should be anathema in every district.
People need to ask why incumbents almost always win even if there are so many valid reasons for them to move on. The answer is pretty simple. $$$
deleted by creator
US politics really romanticizing elderly abuse.
“We are gathered here today to honor the memory of Nancy Pelosi, who-”
“Wait, no! I’m still running for Senate in 2032! I just switched to the Zombie Party!”
“…I told you guys this should have been a closed casket funeral.”deleted by creator
Its a shame more people, especially younger people in the US, aren’t more into things like primaries and other voting besides presidential elections. Makes me wonder who would break through future elections and who they would appoint as a result.
What are you talking about? “Young people” are turning out more at their age than prior generations at that age.
Now 3 of them instead of 2!
Just kidding but it is nice to see voting percentage in the US go up
because the system is designed to check against this! we cannot realistically outvote the cartoonishly dumb and convoluted primary system or the electoral college. after bernie got fucked over twice, how can anyone even have hope anymore? no one more progressive that pete fucking buttigeg is getting anywhere
because the system is designed to check against this!
Is it? Or is it only sustained by, let’s call it, a minimal voter turnout? That is, the system works as expected by those in play so long as voter turnout remains within historical trends which appear to sit under half of all eligible voters during non-presidential election years.
If, however, people were moved to vote more between presidential elections, might that system not potentially begin to falter? Maybe it’s naive, but if one really believes they’ve rigged the system in their favor, don’t you think part of that rigging is built around downplaying the votes outside of those for president?
Yeah Bernie losing the primary felt odd I thought more people preferred him over the rest
I live in a red state and during that election Bernie came to our state capitol and the crowd to see him was literally three city blocks deep from the stage. I had not seen anything like that in my life, ever.
The only person Trump was scared of during that election was Sanders. He’s on tape talking about it privately.
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.
Can both the right and left agree to start electing people in their 40s or 50s for a change?
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.
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.
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…
TESTIFY!
