this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
91 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She wants to run for president, probably thinks that being too public right now might hurt her reputation long term.
She stuck her neck out and tried to make a name for her self earlier in the presidency and was met by foaming frothing rage from the right (nothing new there despite openly pandering to them) and apathy or distaste from the left. She and her team probably think that response is from her association with Biden, but I suspect that is more to do with the vibe she gives off of being a careerist politician.
Being from Oakland a lot of us also know that she's totally fine jailing people for weed, you'd think that a rationale move you would try and step away from the "just doing my job DA" to "Vice President of the People" by pushing for policies that prevent unnecessary jailings.
But you're right, I didn't even really realize until now that Kamala has been almost seemingly less active than Mike Pence as VP. You're probably onto something with the long term campaign, although I also wouldn't be surprised if it was "suggested" that she let Biden take the lead or something.
If this were a company, then this would be a lack of building up the next generation of leaders. I guess politics is a game of everyone for themselves, and not a team.
In a Terry Crews' book he discussed being a rookie in the NFL. One's teammates woke to tear a person down, and not build them up. They are all competing for the same small number of spots.
I'd say that's a good comparison however I would argue that rather than a "team", political agendas (literally not the stupid co-opted meaning) are comprised of micro-teams based on any given measure. As such, you have the occasional partisan bill where you are directly working with members of any party, or a variety of measures inside the party, but with overlapping groups.
But you're absolutely right, I think the staunch example is obvious Mitch McConnell, who notoriously will not vote outside party lines even if it's the right thing that benefits everyone. That's not a team, there's no intention of being one. And it seems like all the old people in politics are just like him, just not nearly as long in stay because they force the younger politicians to "wait their turn". It's bullshit, young people in politics would help immensely and they know that.
I feel like Feinstein is a sad glimpse at what we have to look forward to from our future, where rather than getting to retire in peace these people are kept in the system and paraded instead of being allowed to gracefully give up their position. I say that with respect to her autonomy, it's abysmal that she never reached retirement because of how politics has been forcefully designed to be an old person's game. These people should have been out of politics 20 years ago :(
My guy why are you acting like retiring was stolen from her? She was a walking mummy long before her mental faculties took a nose dive, and chose to stay in politics. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if a sane Feinstein would've told her team to keep her around the way they did if her mind declined. She was not a victim here; she was part of the problem
I don't disagree with that either. It's a consequence of itself. She, like all these dinosaurs, felt the need to "just go one more term". Whether the reasons are power or political plays it doesn't fully matter. I think another example of this is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had she left her position in 2013 or even before we wouldn't have been in the position where she "felt like she had to stay" during Trump's presidency, only to die anyway.
Two things can be true. It can be wrong of all of them to keep politics as an old person's game and simultaneously be a shame that none of these people get to experience retirement. Just because they're being inhumane doesn't mean we need to be.
While two things can be true simultaneously, I just still don't agree that it should be considered a shame they didn't get to experience retirement, as that heavily implies they were at some level swept into that shame of a scenario by other forces. To make an extreme comparison, it'd be like saying it's a shame hitler didn't get to transition into a peaceful retirement. He (and they) created the destructive environment that closed that option off; it's not a shame they couldn't retire, it's a shame they're the kind of people in power in the first place.
It's not inhumane to lack sympathy for someone who actively hurt the system everyone relies on, for their own personal gain, just because they didn't also get a cherry on the top of their sundae