This is coming from an old guy of 69 (me). Why did we let our Dem leaders get so old, so out of touch?

[NewHendoLib]

Old means not understanding the current world of tech and communication. Old means not understanding how to fight in this climate. Old may mean being so embedded in the DC bubble that there is a lack of understanding what is really going on out there. Yes, there is value in experience, in knowledge. But the world is moving faster and Democrats are getting their lunch money stolen.

Like I said, I am 69 (not an old 69, as I am pretty tech savvy and stay on top of stuff) - but I want my leaders to be fighters - I want them to be smart, and aware - I'd love many more of them to be women (including at president).

I am at the left edge of politics - I love AOC, I love what Bernie has for ideas and approach. I don't believe there is such a thing as a centrist in this climate - centrists are, to me, right wingers lacking the courage of their conviction.

I am seriously pissed to watch 5000 points shaved off the stock market since the asshole's inauguration. I am sick of right wingers dominating the airwaves. I am disgusted the harm being done to so many by the asshole and his asshole whatever he is.

I watch baseball and know that teams win when they have a strong farm system - developing youth to come along. Where is the Democrats' bullpen? We have the ideas, but we lack the fight and grit.

This site says "support Democrats" - and I support Democratic principles, ideas and philosophy. What I do not support is constant backing down and ceding power to criminals.

I fully expect this to be hidden, but I had to get it off my chest so I could sleep.

Fuck the orange asshole and his minions.

[gab13by13]

1. Has nothing to do with age,

Wish every Democrat were doing what Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are doing.

[FoxNewsSucks]

32. I think the post is referring to "old" as the attitude and actions,

not the physical age, of the individual.

[Magoo48]

88. Yup, many of them are stuck in their old ways. They cannot see that the game has changed.

This fight must be lead by young creative minds who also have the willingness to speak out. The old culture, the old protocols, the old boys’s way of doing things, that time is passed. That is not now. You cannot bring your lap fans and your points of order to a street fight.

[Escurumbele]

69. You have a point but, the poster has a few more. There are always exceptions, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

are two of those.

Why have Democrats not supported the progressive Democrats more? It worked for Theodore Roosevelt, a republican, he did make the USA much better, he was a progressive, reason why other republicans hated him, they just supported him because he was so popular with voters.

USA citizens are progressive, but they have bought into "progressive not good" rhetoric without understanding why. The older group of Democratic officials have not moved forward with the times, although progressiveness is not new, it is what the USA needs, and so they have stuck with their old ways, and I believe that is where the problem is.

There is a saying in Spanish "Mientras mas viejo mas Pendejo". ("The older one gets, the more stupid one gets&quot , and please do not take it the wrong way, I will explain what it really means.

It means that as people grow older they become more attached to the old ways ("Things were so much better then", "The current youth is lost", this last one was also said by Socrates, many years ago, he thought the youth of his time was lost), the older they get they loose courage, they are more careful to go against the status quo, and thus they tend to vote for things they know they should not vote for and would have never voted for when younger, so we all suffer.

I agree that the Democratic party needs new blood, Schumer and others like him should move on, help build up the progressives, which to me is where the future of the USA lies, and get out of politics besides coaching on the way government works and not on policies, I believe the progressives know where they want to take the USA.

So anyway, both of you have points, lets keep the Bernie Sanders, and Warren, Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, etc., but lets get rid of the rest who are not contributing, or don't have the energy to fight the republican monsters.

Great post NewHendoLib

[MadameButterfly]

85. Teddy Roosevelt only became president because

McKinley was assassinated. He only became VP because NY politicians didn't want him to run for another term as governor and when the VP slot opened up they thought it was a way to render him harmless. He only became governor because he led a very foolish charge in the Spanish-American War in Cuba which he was lucky to survive.

Once president, he was amazing and it turned out voters loved having a Progressive president.
The problem is it takes a near miracle for the political system to let a Progressive get there.

[Escurumbele]

93. Actually, the Spanish-American war in Cuba was a success, and yes, everytime you fight a war you run the risk

of getting killed, he was also very brave (some people may think a bit stupid) because he was not afraid to be in the middle of a fight. He also was a hunter, something I don't agree with but, it was the times, and he went solo hunting which was very risky, he did things that were, to some, crazy but to him things that he loved doing and fear was not a factor.

The one thing I did not agree, at all, with him was his sending his kids to fight a war that he knew would get them killed, and I believe he regretted it , and never recovered from it.

You are correct that he won the presidency because McKinley died, but he would have been president even if McKinley had completed his term, Roosevelt was a doer, he was charismatic, a great speaker, and people loved him, so he would have been president anyway, and he won his 2nd term as president, and as you can see below, it was the republicans who prevented him from a 3rd term.

I am not sure if I interpreted your post correctly, and if I don't, please accept my apologies but it sounds like you infer that he would have never been president had McKinley not died? Which I don't agree with, he was already a very popular man.

1912
Populist Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt came to the presidency after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. He was reelected in 1905, served his second term and then, following tradition, announced he would not seek a third term in 1909. However, by 1912, he has become so disenchanted with the man who followed him, William Taft, that he decides to run. He does not get the nomination of the Republican Party, so he organizes the Progressive Party, which is also known as the Bull Moose Party, and runs under its banner. Although he receives more votes than Taft, the split among Republicans hands the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

republicans did not like him because he was a progressive. If Democrats fought harder to weaken republican propaganda against progressives (well, they have to start by supporting progressives), then it would not be a factor. The same that republicans do to sell their lies, even though they are plain to see, the same Democrats must do to combat and out republican lies, as well as to sell Democratic ideals and the one thing we all complain about? To tell the World of their achievements.

[MadameButterfly]

98. I don't know what would have happened if McKinley

hadn't died. McKinley was set up by the robber barrons who, like Musk and our oligarchs, were willing to finance him and do whatever they had to to defeat a Progressive like Roosevelt.

I know that Teddy was put in the VP by people trying to keep him from power--in those days VP didn't do much. They feared him more in the Governor role in NY. Who knows whether he would have proceeded to the presidency from either role if the people hadn't actually experienced his presidency rather than the propaganda of the robber barrons.

History is littered with great progressives who were popular but defeated by the system. Big money fears them, moderate party leaders fear they are unelectable in a general.

I also pointed out the military feats that propelled him to popularity. I think it's rare to find a Progressive who can boast that, who are both so inclined and who survive. I think such skills don't predict a good president but impress the voters. Without the Battle of Juan Hill I wonder what kind of political career he'd have had.

I'm a fan of Teddy, I just think our system makes it rare for someone like him to come to power.

[alarimer]

2. Power is vested in seniority

These are mostly very safe seats. The House districts are gerrymandered to death and the Senate seats are usually not very competitive either.

Leaders put their thumbs on the scale so we don't have challengers very often.

I would prefer a ranked choice voting system, where at least other people have chance, however small. The system is broken.

There is a culture of risk-aversion that does not serve us at all well.

[NewHendoLib]

4. Yes indeed.

[Escurumbele]

70. Too much money in the electoral system. Get money out and things get better.

Anyone who thinks that, as an example, trump is not in debt with musk is too naive and should not vote. Politicians are in debt with those who pay for them to get elected, they are bought and they all seem to have a prize tag on their necks. Take money out of politics and those prize tags disappear automatically, as a matter of fact, it gets rid of crooks who go into politics for no reason other than to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

[SergeStorms]

80. Bingo.

Dark money has taken hold of both parties. The republicans have raised it to an art form, but there's plenty of dark money to grease the palms of some Democrats as well.

[leftstreet]

3. DURec

[bigtree]

5. who is looking after the interests of furloughed workers

...what's the end game to getting them back on the job after a shutdown?

Why do people expect republicans will care that the bgovernment is vacated, and believe Trump will negotiate at the point where he achieved the evisceration of government he planned all along.

How does an out of power party get the government started again?

[ReRe]

29. Have you seen my reply to you yet?

Hope you didn't throw the towel in and hit the sack. I replied to you from another thread.

[bigtree]

35. I just caught this on the way down

...link please?

[KPN]

31. Good questions. Right now, re: the hows, this

doesn’t feel like how. Certainly, passing the Trump CR (its not even a CR) isn’t it . They gain, we lose, except for not being able to be blamed for it not passing. As if radical thinking is a reason it would be blocked.

Really. Are you shitting me?

[H2O Man]

6. Recommended.

I suspect that it is more a question of who donates to a politician's campaign.

[Wonder Why]

7. Young kids like don't remember the '50s with ancient southern politicians

who had so much power because they got reelected long after they died.

78

[Skittles]

8. what kills me is

in any other job if you are leadership with these kind of "results", you would CEASE TO HAVE A JOB

[NewHendoLib]

9. you got that right.

[slightlv]

10. If you get hidden, probably at least one of my comments

was, too (gryn). I think I came out a bit more in the anger I feel department. I'm against ageism, but I do think we have to remind some of these people when they're too old in their thinking and acting to be effective in today's environment. They say wisdom comes with age... well, I'm 69, too. As a female old fart, I'm wise enough to know when I should step forward and when to step backwards in actions. My mouth... well, it's had a mind of it's own for as long as I've been alive!

Hang in there, NewHendo. If nothing else, there are more than a few of us who feel as you do. Hopefully, that helps you. I swing from absolute desolation to seething anger. It's not at Democrats, per se... but at the lack of what I call "fire in their belly." That passion that says enough is enough and work hard to make things change. There's not a heck of a lot we in the peon arena can do. We have our economic boycotts... for as much as that affects the evil ones. I used to say at least we have the vote. But I think our voting from this point on is going to be much like voting in Hungary or Russia. A mere formality, because the polling stations and computer programs have already been stacked.

As much anger as I felt earlier today (after scanning and reading the latest news), as the night wears on I'm back to feeling depressed. If our leaders won't stand up and lead... what the hell are we going to do that will make any difference? On the other hand, where I liked AOC from the very beginning, I love her even more now.

Hubby asked me last night if we should finally get a gun to have in the house. (We're in a red city in a red state) I'm still not there, yet... though I'm cottoning to the idea a bit more each day. I don't trust myself, truth be known. And guns are really expensive.

[NewHendoLib]

12. I love your comment and support. thanks.

[FoxNewsSucks]

34. If I didn't already have some

I'd go and get one or two, and keep them accessible.

[calimary]

52. THAT is really IT. The "fire in their belly."

I keep asking where it is, too. I don't see much, but hope springs eternal.

And at any rate, it WON'T make me give up on my Dems. Especially when they're pretty much all we've got, at least for now.

[Emile]

100. +1

[hamsterjill]

11. Love this post.

If we don't get some Democrats who are willing to either stand up - or else get the fuck out of the way so that others CAN stand up - we are a sinking ship.

I spent four years during Trump's first term waking up EVERY SINGLE morning wondering what madness was going to befall my nation that day. I heard SO MANY times "aw, they won't overturn Roe". And they did. I lost 13 people in my circle of friends to COVID, and watched one person struggle on a ventilator for six weeks and then (miraculously) have to learn how to walk and talk all over again.

When Joe won, I was SO VERY relieved. Sanity restored. I heard "oh, give Merrick Garland time and he'll put the slobfather away. Look at Letecia James. She'll get him". And no one did.

Now, we are back at the madness again. I don't give a fuck WHO Donald Trump is or HOW MANY followers he has. The rest of us have some rights left, at least, and at the very minimum, there should be Democratic leaders willing to fight for those rights. I want to hear from them and hear what they are doing, what they propose WE THE PEOPLE do, and what their strategy is for saving our way of life. Because THAT is what is on the line here and ANYONE who thinks differently needs to look back at the last eight years and realize that we aren't in Kansas any more!

[NewHendoLib]

13. Thanks. I am pleasantly surprised at the reactions to my rant!

I didn't think it would last here 10 minutes.

[slightlv]

18. I also think that it needs to be clearer that when we "bitch, gripe, and moan"

we're not picking on Democratic politicians as a whole. We're all true blue Democrats here, I believe. And as the age skews a little older here than at other forums, I think most of us would call ourselves FDR Democrats. That means something. And all the griping and hard words come from that -- where IS the FDR for our time? It's sheer frustration because at many times it feels like we're pushing for Democrats and Democracy more than our representatives are. And yet, almost to a person, we know our own limitations both in who we are and how we can make ourselves heard, given our age.

Of course, as we age, it seems "the world" more often forgives the old for outrageous words and actions... that goes along with treating us like children and talking down to us.

I can only hope that one day my first question of every day will be answered in the affirmative... yes, he DID die last night!

[RockRaven]

14. Money talks. Those in leadership tend to be the bigger fundraisers.

They can help other members get re-elected that way. Especially since Citizens United. That provides an incentive to support them for leadership spots.

Part of that is self-fulfilling, being in leadership is obviously an aide to fundraising. But also to be a big fundraiser it helps to have a) seniority, b) from a rich area, c) in a partisanly safe seat. Or at least 2 of 3.
See: Pelosi and Jeffries, Reid and Schumer.

This is, to put it mildly, not an ideal system. But it is the system we have, so we better figure out how to navigate it better if it cannot or will not be changed. Because we are NOT. DOING. WELL. at the moment.

[NewHendoLib]

16. understood, and absolutely.

[KPN]

42. Good explanation for what is wrong, but I would say

that we need to change it. Better navigating it will only perpetuate a system that is designed to aggregate power at the same upper end that money is aggregated at.

When people give you 10’s of thousands of dollars saying you are the person I trust to govern our nation well, how do you blow them off when they tell you this or that is really important to them? You don’t. You look for a way to satisfy them and at the same time keep the little guy mollified. And then the bad guys — the Rs — tell the mollified that they are being screwed over by bleeding heart liberals — aka “socialists” — who are giving your hard earned cash, as little as it is, to the lazy, druggies, and serial rapist immigrants.

The more important question is: what long term strategy can change that? We need a different strategy and it seems to get that, we probably do need different leaders. How do we accomplish that?

[SunImp]

15. It's frowned upon to criticize party leadership or say the direction of the party is headed in the wrong way.

Just look at the backlash to Al Green's SoTU protest or what Tim Walz said was a factor for Kamala's loss. Some don't want Democrats to defy party leaders & don't like it when some Dems like Walz accept blame.

[NewHendoLib]

17. which I find shocking...but then again, I am not a follower.

[FoxNewsSucks]

19. And that's why we're fucked so badly.

We get stabbed in the back by what is supposed to be the "leadership" WE fucking elect, and can't even speak out against that here or the post will likely be removed. I don't see how that helps anything.

Walz is great, and Al Green should have been just the first to yell at tRump. It rattled the orange piece of shit, and it should have gone on all night.

[KPN]

43. Amen.

[dalton99a]

20. Kick

[FoxNewsSucks]

21. I couldn't agree more.

It gets hard to support some of them who do nothing but stab us in the back time and time again.

I expect my support to be reciprocal, shouldn't everyone?

[spanone]

22. K&R

[LiberalArkie]

23. Their wealth. Schumer's is about 80 million

[DaBronx]

36. This is NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!

Look it up in a reputable source. You are repeating a false statement that was posted on X. Kindly review the facts and remove accordingly.

[LiberalArkie]

41. Just about everything is wrong due to the AI. But

One place did say.

Schumer’s exact net worth cannot be calculated from these numbers alone, however, his FDR suggests that his total wealth is significantly less than the $81 million claimed by the post. Even using the highest possible estimate for every reported asset value, Schumer and his wife’s combined assets totaled only around $2.5 million in 2023.

I would think though living in DC and having a residence in New York that the homes would have a value of more than the 2.5 million. But I guess he just rents probably.

Which probably put Bernie sanders higher with his book sales.

[cadoman]

50. your #'s seem in line with this report

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/schumer2011financialdisclosureform.pdf

Not sure it's comprehensive as it seems to focus on publicly traded assets.

Also not sure why the report appears to be over a decade old but it's what I could find...

[LiberalArkie]

55. It could be either set of numbers looking at the disclosure form.

Since they only ask if income is between 15,000 and 50,000 and $100,000 and $250,000

I did not even see where the disclosure even asks about other assets.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25538149-sen-chuck-schumer-financial-disclosure-report-2023/

[DaBronx]

58. I would encourage you to visit Politifact

[LiberalArkie]

61. Look, I have no gripe with Sen Schumer's income, really it is about the system.

"Oh, I my income is between $1,005 and $5,00,000". It just makes it very easy to not disclose anything on the disclosures.

[DaBronx]

62. Truth matters regardless of your opinions on these issues

[lildDemz]

82. Take your choice.

As of 2025, Chuck Schumer’s net worth is estimated to be $900,000 to $1.2 million.

Chuck Schumer, representing New York since 1998, has also achieved remarkable financial success, with recent estimates suggesting his net worth surpasses $60 million.

Charles E Schumer. Rank: 73rd in the Senate with an estimated net worth of $948,522 in 2015.

Chuck Schumer has a $210,000 salary and a $75 million net worth.

[Aussie105]

24. The old guys?

They are quite comfortable where they are, enjoying the income and perceived social status.

They probably realize they have grown fat, lazy and out of touch, but have learnt how to appear otherwise, and block more competent younger people from competing for their jobs.

There needs an enforceable retirement age for politicians. 65?
And a strict cognitive test for mental acuity over a certain age. 55?

In a different country, with a different non fossilized political system, AOC would be the President.

Check the age and genders of other world leaders!

[ReRe]

48. Out of curiosity, are you really from Down Under? ;-)

I gather you are young. Sounds like you have made up your mind about old folks, with all the stereotyping. Old folks are not all the same. This bunch of old folks love youngins. When we hear the passion coming out of AOC and Jasmine, it thrills our old Democratic souls. Please don't put us all in the same basket. Like I always say, it takes all kinds.

[orchidlady]

91. old?

clearly you're nowhere near those ages you listed. just.you.wait. i hope you achieve ancient status; it's quite an amazing thing.

cognitive decline varies greatly individual to individual. as a neuropsychologist on the far side of 75, i know of what i speak, both personally and professionally. i can tell you this. i do need more rest than when i was 40, don't move as fast physically, but not only is my mind rather sharp (i'm told), but my memory is really good (save for the occasional name-finding moments; hey, a lot of stuff in my brain, hard to find things sometimes!)

i can also tell you this. what i may lack in speed i have gained immeasurably in wisdom. something that only comes with time and experience.

i was fully exercised about chuck's position, to the point of sending out msgs everywhere, calling each of those senators. but then i read a few pieces that shared the extent of complications involved, how there was hardly a way out (hell, the Rs cut this CR without any dems! shut us out!!), which gave me pause. the one that really got my attention was that courtrooms, tho they'd still operate, would not likely enjoy marshals for security.

the courts have been giving us win after win, especially yesterday when almost all fired employees in all agencies were ordered back to work. that's a big win, one that john roberts and amy barrett will have a very hard time blessing.

the CR is only for six months. yes, tons of damage will be done in that time, but much of it will only be attempted, as long as the courts have security to operate.

weighing this and other complications also exposed to me just how tangled up all this is. in many ways that's good; our system has these hurdles in place to slow down such insanity, and for the most part that's working to our advantage. but the larger issue is up to us, the people. the most important thing we can do right now is to find a way to remain UNITED!! i know chuck is old, but he has a ton of wisdom about these gnarly matters. i daresay no one here would have the first clue about all those tangles were we in his shoes. and i'm quite sure there was no choice he could have made that would have pleased everyone. still, i'm inclined to accept he made the best one available to hm. so blame the Rs for giving us a sophie's choice. always always always, blame the Rs!

[Uncle Joe]

25. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread NewHendoLib

[NewHendoLib]

26. thanks for reading it!

[usonian]

27. Two mentions of Bernie. I am 76 and never stopped advocating for civil rights. And I never will.

The young and the old meet in the area called "Not owned by fat contributors"

Citizens United must go.
One dollar one vote, that is all.

Why buy votes when you can buy legislators.
Why are they so the same? Because they are beholden to the same oligarchs, and youngigarchs (tech and crypto bros)

[KPN]

44. That's it In a nutshell.

[yardwork]

63. It's easy to say "Citizens United must go."

The only way to get rid of that horrible decision - which sold out our democracy - was to elect Hillary Clinton instead of Trump in 2016.

The minute Trump won that election, Citizens United was guaranteed to last the rest of my life anyway, probably much longer, because Trump got to put three new justices on the Supreme Court.

If Hillary had won, she would have gotten to choose those justices, and Citizens United would be gone now.

Sometimes really important things turn on a dime. The 2016 election was probably the deciding point for our democracy.

[moniss]

28. I'm with you every step of the way and

the Progressives have been labeled as "too extreme" by everybody in media and most of politics for decades. So now we have the situation as you so well described.

[NewHendoLib]

30. amazing isn't it? we are "extreme" because we believe in equality in every dimension -

in fairness, in science, in the arts, in progress - in empathy, in kindness - in the environment - and so much more. And we are "too extreme". Give me a fucking break.

[Bobstandard]

33. Epic quote from the OP

centrists are, to me, right wingers lacking the courage of their conviction

That rings so true it hurts.

[Aussie105]

37. A technical/historical viewpoint:

When the Founding Fathers did their thing, old age was a sign of wisdom.

People simply didn't live long enough to get demented, unlike now.

They never envisaged a time when the top job was occupied by a nasty old man who can barely walk and talk coherently, let alone make abstract intellectual judgements for the good of the country.

In 1776 the youngest of the Founding Fathers was 18, the oldest was 44.
The 'wise old man' in the room was George Washington, he was 44.

https://www.snopes.com/articles/466491/ages-founding-fathers-july-4-1776/

President Washington died at the age of 67.

Today, most people of that age have just settled into retirement with 15 to 20 years of life left to look forward to.

[red dog 1]

38. I wish I could Rec this post 10,000 times!

There are a lot of us out there!

(Dems who love Democratic leaders like AOC & Bernie & Elizabeth Warren).

[moonshinegnomie]

39. i really dont see how this doesnt end in violence

im not advocating for it but lets be serious.
you have an out of control president destroying peoples lives. you have his party gleefully going along with it. at teh same time you have the other party basically surrendering to it.

when people have their lives destroyed and they think they have no other option violence is the result.

[Aussie105]

40. Surrendering?

Or possibly . . . we warned you, you didn't listen, now we won't try to limit the damage the current administration does, so you all can see that the vote you cast, if it was for 'R', did a lot of damage. So get it right next time!

Collective thought bubble from Biden, Harris, Obama, Clinton, and others who are deliberately staying out of this . . . you voted for this! Live with it!

Future violence? Civil war?

Nobody wishes for it, not on our side anyway, maybe the collective insanity will fade away as Trump makes more and more destructive decisions and the collective consciousness of America goes . . . Trump has gotta go!

[Gimpyknee]

45. I'm pissed off that Biden, Harris, Obama, Clinton and others are staying out of this

[JanMichael]

92. Agree. This is not a normal situation. Not at all.

[CoopersDad]

46. It takes big money to be elected.

That's just the truth, and with Citizens United still in play, the powerful are even more powerful and they contribute to both parties.

[KPN]

47. Wonderfully great post. Kudos for taking the time

as well as the risk to post this here. I admire your moxie NHL.

[calimary]

49. With ya, NewHendoLib!

"I am seriously pissed to watch 5000 points shaved off the stock market since the asshole's inauguration." Indeed!!! Seems to me we're being handed treats like this on a plate and WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH IT??? Besides NOTHING???

I think I'm as frustrated as you are. WAAAAAAY too much "let's make nice" from Democrats. You never EVER hear that kind of capitulation from the GOP. And frankly, the very dead-last thing I wanna do with Repubs is to make nice." FUCK THAT!!!

I'm just a little bit older than you are, but I REFUSE to give up, because I strongly suspect that's exactly what the bad guys want.

I will NEVER give in to them OR concede that they're right on ANYTHING. PERIOD. And I'll never stop looking for fire-breathers. Especially fire-breathing candidates!

Take heart and don't get discouraged! A lot of us are still fighting out here, and we've got your back. And we need you!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Right there with you NHL!!

[NewHendoLib]

53. Kick for the day shift

[WhiskeyGrinder]

54. Part of it is simply demographics. The size of the boomer generation means there are currently more of them in

positions of power, and with GenX being one of the smallest generations, many boomers hung on to their positions for longer because there wasn't a demographic push behind them to keep them moving.

[radius777]

66. +1. Millennials could be the ones to change things

as they are a large generation (soon to be the establishment) that knows that 'going along to get along' doesn't work.

[OneGrassRoot]

56. This. n/t

[William769]

57. There is old & then there is old.

Take Bernie for example. Don't get me wrong, I'm for bringing in young & new blood to mix with the old.

We just don't have the right old one's in power positions right now.

Ah hell, I'm just here rambling now.

[NewHendoLib]

59. Your comments are always appreciated, friend.

And I totally agree.

[Kaleva]

60. Many here were pissed when Biden dropped out

[Bettie]

64. Citizens United

pretty much divorced politicians from their constituents. The "big cats" don't really need small dollar donors anymore.

[travelingthrulife]

65. I feel like there was a generation that just didn't show up for politics.

To busy indulging themselves.

[intheflow]

67. Yes, Republicans have been building up asshole leadership through Turning Point USA.

It was only launched in 2012 and look at the power and influence they've amassed in just 13 years. Meanwhile, Democratic leadership have used that same timeframe to marginalize young leaders and young activists as too idealistic, unrealistic, and inexperienced. Now our leadership is mostly over 65, at and past the ages when many people retire. It's been frustrating to be a progressive Democrat since at least the 1990s.

[NotHardly]

68. Fuck the orange asshole and his minions. (borrowed content)

[CentralBlueTexan]

71. NewHendoLib

Democrats have neglected to build a farm team. In Texas legislative races many Republicans run unopposed. The Republican primaries determine who will win in Texas House and Senate races. Without active local Democratic Parties in Red States, there is no next generation of leaders.

[NNadir]

72. You're the age of my little brother - where ever the hell he went.

I agree with you. We have some outstanding young people in our party, AOC (with whom I sometimes disagree) among them. I thought awful she wasn't given a leadership position. I love her energy, her obvious intelligence and her life story.

An example of a young person with guts, intelligence, and an impeccable moral standing.

We are not living in the time of Gerald Ford, Reagan, George HW Bush. This time is about the end of the United States as a world power and a general force for good, the death of a long lived Constitutional democracy.

The old bromide applies to us old people on this site inhabited largely by old people: "Those who cannot lead should get out of the way."

[NewHendoLib]

73. .

Thx from one chemist to another!

[bluboid]

74. wow! brilliant! thanks.

[Littlered]

75. I guess I'm left wondering

What’s really going on out here? And what is considered centrist? I believe there are people (a large contingent of them) that would argue the unbridled leftward surge of the parties social agenda is what led us to this point. Labeling those that didn’t agree with it lock, stock, and barrel, any hurtful ism or ist that comes to mind, made people feel alienated.

This should be an eye opener. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5123096-democrats-ideological-shift/

[bucolic_frolic]

76. I know nothing, that's why i post

Democratic office holders came from the lawyers that upheld the party in the turbulent 60s and Watergate 70s. Reagan Republicans were businessmen. We didn't have a lot of those, especially at that time.

Lawyering faded as the sole criteria for political office.

We didn't do activism in the 1990s-2020 with the same fervor of the 1960s.

You need name recognition to win Democratic primaries. So we stuck with trusted names, many of them older.

Of course all this could be wrong. Just throwing observations out there.

[Evolve Dammit]

77. Well said

[PatrickforB]

78. Many of us feel the same way you do... n/t

[Crowman2009]

79. Not much to do with old age, as it does old outdated political ideas.

And it's not exclusive to age either. Take Sellout Sinema and John Fetterman for example.

[Torrent63]

81. Amen.

On the same page with you. This the time for hardball actions, not dithering.

[OldBaldy1701E]

83. And, I expect this reply to be removed as well, but you asked.

They are in positions of the highest power and they are making out like fat cats.

Why would they want anything to change?

[elleng]

84. 69 is not 'so old.'

and they're not out of touch, but do have differing points of view from others, which is to be expected.

[Emile]

99. I wish I could turn back the clock and be 69 again. LOL

[MadameButterfly]

86. The Democratic bench is very deep

there's just so much talent that doesn't get a chance to rise to the top.

Part of the problem is the population grows but Congress doesn't. The Senate is ridiculously small for a country this size, and in the big states becoming a Senator is near like winning the lottery.
We need proportional rule in the Senate and an end to gerrymanding and you'd be amazed to see who comes out of the woodwork.

Of course I'm dreaming, the next best thing is for Schumer to take Pelosi's example. I was a fan of Pelosi, I'm not for term limits or age limits, but there is common sense.

[KSL-Washington]

87. Old is not age related

As a 75 yr. old, I can't agree more with you. Old is a state of mind (or lack thereof). That being said, I have long thought there should be a mandatory retirement age of 69 for members of Congress. The same goes for Cabinet secretaries. We need term limits for judges, and not just the Supreme Court. MOst of these jokers let their staff do all their work. Perhaps because they can't figure out how to log on to their computers?
I'm so tired of the BS coming out of the Democratic party I would leave it if there was a choice that could win a majority. Being Independent doesn't work. Independents will never win an election under our two party system. All they can do is vote in such a way as to ensure one party or the other doesn't win in a close election. Every Independent who voted for Trump is a Republican as far as I can tell.
Arrgh!

[senseandsensibility]

89. I like the way you frame it

I do find that some are a little too defensive, when obviously the status quo is not working. Let's all open our minds a little to different ways of approaching what is undoubtedly a crisis.

[NewHendoLib]

90. Thank you.

[Progressive dog]

94. If they are still alive

they are probably still learning. I'd rather have them then Musk and his young stupid hackers.

[Aussie105]

95. When a political system gets stale and is only motivated by self interest . . .

Revolution and civil war are often the outcomes.

It's a short list, historically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

Not advocating a stabbing in the rotunda, Ides of March style, or bloodshed in the streets Mme guillotine style, but something needs to clear the blockage in a very dysfunctional and constipated political system.

[tavernier]

96. Please stop with the age votes.

I’m 78 and I vote for a country that is committed to planning and building and engineering and supporting the dreams of Americans.

[NewHendoLib]

102. you missed my point. it's not the age of us voters. it is the age of our leaders.

[LoisB]

97. Amen!

[Woodwizard]

101. You can say the same on the right

But they have a simpler message, get rid of stuff and it will fix everything. Whether it is immigrants or benefits for all those "lazy" people it is always remove instead of build.

And the cable media for the most part goes along with it.

The infrastructure bill is a good example how many are aware of it? Not many just boring stuff that keeps everything running.

My daughter is 36 voted for Harris but really does not keep up on events, same for most of her friends most people on average are not going into the weeds on policy unlike people on this site.

Maybe more will pay attention as the shit hits the fan but I doubt it. Anyone paying attention in his last term knew this would be worse.

[valleyrogue]

103. Trashing the thread.

Age has nothing to do with this. Ageist attitudes have no place here. I don't care the age of the poster.

Nobody is complaining about Warren and especially Sanders, who is older than dirt.

People have trouble with counting and with not putting blame where it belongs.

[NewHendoLib]

104. You miss the point too. Trash away

[stoned]

105. I personally love the old-school Democrats

like the ones I grew up with in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and I miss them. I wish the pendulum would swing back that way. I think it would capture a lot more "moderates" and those in the center.

[Autumn]

106. The longer they stay in office and the wealthier they get the more out

of touch with the people they get. Endless perks, travel, make a lot of money from lobiests and all the heathcare they could possibley need at little cost. One of the big perks they deny the people that vote for them. Look at what has been going on with the republucans They lie steal, rape and they protect each other and hide the evidence. And it's all legal. The system is broken. It's not a matter of age, it's corruption. And not enough are willing to give up the perks to fight it.