Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
The new guard is just as eager to grift. Just look at George Santos.
Edit: yes I know he is a Republican and not a Democrat. Same difference.
“Old guard” isn’t referring to age, it’s referring to the neoliberal democratic establishment who are currently facing challenges from progressives and democratic socialists. George Santos is completely unrelated to anything that’s being discussed here.
Wasn’t he a republican? And also a convicted felon.
I don’t think he has anything to do with the old or new guard in the democratic party, it seems like you’re just trying to argue in bad faith.
I am making the argument that just because someone is younger than the current politicians doesn’t meant they are better.
Could not agree more. It has become highly fashionable to start parroting a bunch of generational warfare nonsense.
People like Charlie Kirk and the groypers are definitely not old people. People in the broverse are clearly trying to indoctrinate young men into a lot of patent nonsense, many of these “influencers” are not old people, either.
People need to be judged on their merits, not the number of times they’ve been around the sun (beyond a certain threshold of being old enough to be running for office).
Hey look another person trying to deflect blame away from Boomers.
Tbf I think there’s a degree of correlation vs causation at play here. Career politicians who have been in office for literal decades are more likely to be out of touch with how the average person actually lives and newcomers are likely to skew younger.
What we need is fresh blood. The age of the actual politicians is more just a natural consequence of that than the goal.
The republican George Santos?
Maybe you mean cuelar from Texas? He’s a san antonio rep that was in trouble for fraud and was let off by trump and now votes with them on their bs.
Doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat. Both sides are for the most part captured by corporate interests.
That is true to some degree, but there is no Dem Soc movement within the gop. I’m no fan of the democratic party, but there are some decent folks in it. Aside from a couple single issue allies, I can’t think of anyone decent in the gop.
Hence the entire new guard of the Democratic party not taking corporate PAC money, and the entire purpose of this post.
Also, are we really still playing the “both sides” game in $CURRENTYEAR, where one side is openly fascist?
Until campaign finance laws are changed it won’t make a huge difference.
And how are we going go change campaign finance laws until we elect politicians who don’t take corporate money?
This isn’t a chicken and egg problem. There is a very clear starting point.
But there still is a difference. Show me where the Democrats have someone like Bannon or Steve Miller or the demons that crafted Project 2025…or hell, even Donvict himself, who has already enriched himself to the tune of billions.
Hey look it’s another person trying to use the horrifying behavior of Republicans to hand wave away Democratic politicians supporting genocide.
Sure. I’ll admit there is no Steve Banon or Steven Miller or Dick Cheney.
There is still AIPAC and other think tanks. Democrats just manage decay for the most part while getting a corporate donation.