politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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).
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.
Hey look another person trying to deflect blame away from Boomers.
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.
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.
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.
"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.