I’ve said it before: Every Democrat I know in real life seems like an empathetic person, so it’s astonishing they choose these ghouls to represent them.
That’s because Congress has been piss-poor at being representative of the people.
It’s usually not about who shares the policy positions of the electorate as much as who can scrape together enough money to buy enough ads to convince them that they’re the one most likely to beat the other team.
That’s how Pelosi became Speaker in the first place in spite of having no legislative accomplishments to speak of nor seniority: she was simply the best at collecting fat checks from rich people and their corporations.
Yeah I know. All the rules are written and being written by the already rich and powerful. Based on the world’s oldest national constitution still in use.
Who would have thought that perpetually basing society on the opinions of a bunch of slave owning WASPs would lead to inequality ‽
And then we’re supposed to feel enthused about voting for the candidate who’s gracious enough to harm fewer marginalized groups, rather than feeling perpetually depressed and miserable about the whole situation, which seems like a normal reaction.
I wouldn’t say it’s by design. It hasnt had any updates in quite awhile. It’s like a Commodore 64 trying to play Skyrim. When it was designed, the world was much different. We have not updated our government to catch up.
Pelosi had literal decades of political experience, and was co-authoring legislation in the late 80s concerning the AIDs crisis. She became Speaker after Democrats won control of the house with her as minority leader – a position she won in 2002/2003 after being directly under it for a couple years.
I get not liking Pelosi, or fundraising I guess, but it’s bizarre when criticisms are spun seemingly whole cloth.
Yeah, decades of effectively soliciting bribes in exchange for being one of the most pro-corporate democrats in all of California and that’s saying a LOT in the neoliberal utopia of Hollywood, a huge chunk of the music industry and Silicon Valley.
co-authoring legislation in the late 80s concerning the AIDs crisis.
So was many other experienced democrats who didn’t pander to the rich as effectively as the queen of fundraising.
No matter how little you like admitting it, that WAS the only way in which she excelled over other prospective candidates for minority leader and then Speaker.
So now we’re saying she actually did have both signficant political and legislative experience, but won because of a penchant for fundraising. Which is something you see as soliciting bribes. That’s a fair interpretation.
From your original comment:
That’s how Pelosi became Speaker in the first place in spite of having no legislative accomplishments to speak of nor seniority: she was simply the best at collecting fat checks from rich people and their corporations.
My gripe is why invent this idea that her taking a bunch of bribes and being good at soliciting more is the sole reason they made her speaker, with no other qualifications? She had held prominent positions within the party for a while (decades), and was minority whip (second in command essentially) for some time prior to becoming Leader/Speaker. She was minority leader when Dems took the house, which automatically makes her a major contender for the position and she was comparable to her opponents on the whole. A cursory search of her career casts a ton of doubt on your claims, and they’re obviously flawed to someone who lived through that time.
Getting caught up in bashing Pelosi waters down the legit criticism you have, and makes your viewpoint seem biased. We should be upset that her penchant for fundraising is such an asset, not that she was good at it in the first place.
You dont really get a choice on who the party chooses to prop up and runs. See, Bernie Sanders. But, hell, I’ve seen it ag the grass roots level in my state. The people with the power in the party decide who goes on the ballot.
In my experience they appear to be until you bring up some issues, then they turn into bloodthirsty monsters.
For example, my my goes completely Ooga booga genocidal when Isreal is brought up.
Or on housing: She won’t even entertain any solutions that don’t let landlords keep exploiting people’s basic need for homes. She gets all “why should they have to give up property? They worked for it! Shouldn’t they be able to make money?” She can’t possibly empathize enough to value the basic needs of most people over the right for people who already own more than they need to profit off of others who have less than they need.
Honestly, I think most of them just don’t like the aesthetic of the Republican Party more than they’re actually opposed to conservative politics.
Yeah, that’s probably why these horrible people end up in office. Most Democrats I know are my father, who says he’s socialist and actually used to teach history, and local politicians who seem pretty good, but I imagine they’re not necessarily a good cross section of the party.
That’s why it literally surprised me when Biden won the primaries, like what
Well then it’s a good thing you’re able to pay attention to all things at all times and look down from your high horse. Maybe some of us are paying too much attention to too many things at once, so solid advice, I’ll try to fix that.
A prerequisite for being a politician is also being a narcissistic sociopath. The few that aren’t/weren’t are the deviation from that, and usually get hamstrung if not just killed anyway.
I’ve actually considered running for local office, but I decided against it for a couple reasons, one being my unusual work schedule, and the other being the fact that I can’t imagine being around politicians that much.
Anyway, it’s pretty clear we need more than elections to fix whatever it is this is.
I’ve said it before: Every Democrat I know in real life seems like an empathetic person, so it’s astonishing they choose these ghouls to represent them.
That’s because Congress has been piss-poor at being representative of the people.
It’s usually not about who shares the policy positions of the electorate as much as who can scrape together enough money to buy enough ads to convince them that they’re the one most likely to beat the other team.
That’s how Pelosi became Speaker in the first place in spite of having no legislative accomplishments to speak of nor seniority: she was simply the best at collecting fat checks from rich people and their corporations.
Our “democracy” does this by design. Looking at history, it’s hard to believe we can ever fix this.
Yeah I know. All the rules are written and being written by the already rich and powerful. Based on the world’s oldest national constitution still in use.
Who would have thought that perpetually basing society on the opinions of a bunch of slave owning WASPs would lead to inequality ‽
And then we’re supposed to feel enthused about voting for the candidate who’s gracious enough to harm fewer marginalized groups, rather than feeling perpetually depressed and miserable about the whole situation, which seems like a normal reaction.
I wouldn’t say it’s by design. It hasnt had any updates in quite awhile. It’s like a Commodore 64 trying to play Skyrim. When it was designed, the world was much different. We have not updated our government to catch up.
Pelosi had literal decades of political experience, and was co-authoring legislation in the late 80s concerning the AIDs crisis. She became Speaker after Democrats won control of the house with her as minority leader – a position she won in 2002/2003 after being directly under it for a couple years.
I get not liking Pelosi, or fundraising I guess, but it’s bizarre when criticisms are spun seemingly whole cloth.
Yeah, decades of effectively soliciting bribes in exchange for being one of the most pro-corporate democrats in all of California and that’s saying a LOT in the neoliberal utopia of Hollywood, a huge chunk of the music industry and Silicon Valley.
So was many other experienced democrats who didn’t pander to the rich as effectively as the queen of fundraising.
No matter how little you like admitting it, that WAS the only way in which she excelled over other prospective candidates for minority leader and then Speaker.
So now we’re saying she actually did have both signficant political and legislative experience, but won because of a penchant for fundraising. Which is something you see as soliciting bribes. That’s a fair interpretation.
From your original comment:
My gripe is why invent this idea that her taking a bunch of bribes and being good at soliciting more is the sole reason they made her speaker, with no other qualifications? She had held prominent positions within the party for a while (decades), and was minority whip (second in command essentially) for some time prior to becoming Leader/Speaker. She was minority leader when Dems took the house, which automatically makes her a major contender for the position and she was comparable to her opponents on the whole. A cursory search of her career casts a ton of doubt on your claims, and they’re obviously flawed to someone who lived through that time.
Getting caught up in bashing Pelosi waters down the legit criticism you have, and makes your viewpoint seem biased. We should be upset that her penchant for fundraising is such an asset, not that she was good at it in the first place.
the good ol’ lesser of two evils.
They’re convinced that they don’t have a choice.
You dont really get a choice on who the party chooses to prop up and runs. See, Bernie Sanders. But, hell, I’ve seen it ag the grass roots level in my state. The people with the power in the party decide who goes on the ballot.
It’s really not very democratic, in the strict sense of the term
It’s exclusionary by design
Bernie Sanders almost won, though. I’m holding out hope that the Democrats can be reformed, but I’m still voting Green.
In my experience they appear to be until you bring up some issues, then they turn into bloodthirsty monsters.
For example, my my goes completely Ooga booga genocidal when Isreal is brought up.
Or on housing: She won’t even entertain any solutions that don’t let landlords keep exploiting people’s basic need for homes. She gets all “why should they have to give up property? They worked for it! Shouldn’t they be able to make money?” She can’t possibly empathize enough to value the basic needs of most people over the right for people who already own more than they need to profit off of others who have less than they need.
Honestly, I think most of them just don’t like the aesthetic of the Republican Party more than they’re actually opposed to conservative politics.
If your installation of Oobabooga is unstable, you might need to switch LLMs
Yeah, that’s probably why these horrible people end up in office. Most Democrats I know are my father, who says he’s socialist and actually used to teach history, and local politicians who seem pretty good, but I imagine they’re not necessarily a good cross section of the party.
That’s why it literally surprised me when Biden won the primaries, like what
Not sure how that was surprising to anyone paying attention at the time lol
Well then it’s a good thing you’re able to pay attention to all things at all times and look down from your high horse. Maybe some of us are paying too much attention to too many things at once, so solid advice, I’ll try to fix that.
I’ll start by blocking you.
A prerequisite for being a politician is also being a narcissistic sociopath. The few that aren’t/weren’t are the deviation from that, and usually get hamstrung if not just killed anyway.
I’ve actually considered running for local office, but I decided against it for a couple reasons, one being my unusual work schedule, and the other being the fact that I can’t imagine being around politicians that much.
Anyway, it’s pretty clear we need more than elections to fix whatever it is this is.