you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (15 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am making the argument that just because someone is younger than the current politicians doesn’t meant they are better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 27 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat. Both sides are for the most part captured by corporate interests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Until campaign finance laws are changed it won’t make a huge difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    "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.

  • source
  • parent