81 year old Nancy Pelosi is running for re-election!

fredjr82

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 13, 2007
22,481
12,026
113
I hate age discrimination but anyone over 65 should not be able to run for any type of political position. Bring them on as consultants if they're that desired, otherwise go enjoy the sunset. Pelosi, Biden, Trump, Grassley, Schumer, etc all fit the "get lost" criteria.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
14,755
19,179
113
It seems like being in the Congress or the Senate must be an awesome gig.

Is it power? Ego? Money (like insider tips)? All 3?

I simply don't get it. You are in a situation where 1/2 of your "co-workers" dislike you and 40%+ of your constituents dislike you. You are a part of government that gets a 10% approval rating. Sitting in on dreadful committees with 25 people on it that don't accomplish anything. Sitting in the big chamber hearing about all sorts of nonsense.

Then you get to go back to your home state and have coffee with people arguing about the price of coffee (inflation) or gas prices, hearing stories about their neighbor's cousin's house getting broken into and when are you going to fix crime?

You get to listen to people bitch, moan, complain and bore the sh*t out of you every day,

Then you have to go around raising money so you can do it all again for several more years?

Ugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkFan1298

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
65,789
47,665
113
My understanding is that she is done as Speaker after this Congress. That was the deal made to get progressives on board. I don't really give a damn who her district sends to represent it - I know they'll be far, FAR better than the idiot who represents me.
 

TJ8869

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2006
46,506
43,376
113
Would…60 years ago.

PelosiKennedy.jpeg
 

noleclone2

HR Legend
May 4, 2015
12,948
37,238
113
Nancy is 81. Mitch is 79. Biden is 79.

It is pretty crazy thinking these folks are at the highest levels of two branches of the US Government and they are older than freakin Baby Boomers. Another way to look at it is that it is is 2022 and our nation is being lead by the Silent Generation born between 1928-1945.
 
Mar 11, 2020
16,697
14,732
113
Nancy is 81. Mitch is 79. Biden is 79.

It is pretty crazy thinking these folks are at the highest levels of two branches of the US Government and they are older than freakin Baby Boomers. Another way to look at it is that it is is 2022 and our nation is being lead by the Silent Generation born between 1928-1945.
You would think one advantage of that generation would be them being super frugal coming off the back of the depression. Nope.
 

PoopandBoogers

HR All-American
Mar 29, 2002
3,636
5,985
113
It seems like being in the Congress or the Senate must be an awesome gig.

Is it power? Ego? Money (like insider tips)? All 3?

I simply don't get it. You are in a situation where 1/2 of your "co-workers" dislike you and 40%+ of your constituents dislike you. You are a part of government that gets a 10% approval rating. Sitting in on dreadful committees with 25 people on it that don't accomplish anything. Sitting in the big chamber hearing about all sorts of nonsense.

Then you get to go back to your home state and have coffee with people arguing about the price of coffee (inflation) or gas prices, hearing stories about their neighbor's cousin's house getting broken into and when are you going to fix crime?

You get to listen to people bitch, moan, complain and bore the sh*t out of you every day,

Then you have to go around raising money so you can do it all again for several more years?

Ugh.
Hint- their 20-30 something staffers do all the grunt work, while they drive around in limos to golf courses and black tie events.
 

SSG T

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 10, 2002
41,548
56,254
113
Both are way to old. I know there are sharp 80 year olds but no way they are in their mental peak.

I think for most giving up the power and the spotlight is hard to do.

As my dad put it, "I'm 82, I'd tell someone willing to vote for me to seek help"

The problem isn't that someone is 81, the problem is that very often people start to go downhill rapidly at that age or soon after. A spry 81 year old many times becomes an 84 year old who needs a lot of assistance, both from natural or unforseen reasons. As I've seen with my mom, a fall can have pretty impactful long term consequences.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,171
14,405
113
Term limits are not the problem. The problem is the incumbent always has too large of an advantage in elections. This isn't surprising since they're the ones that constructed the system to favor themselves.
Gerrymandering doesn’t help when for the vast majority of Congress they don’t have to worry about losing in the general election unless they REALLY screw up, and the only possible threat can come in the primary.
You would think one advantage of that generation would be them being super frugal coming off the back of the depression. Nope.
It’s a stereotype but it feels like people who grew up during the Great Depression come in two basic varieties: super-spends or super frugal. My grandmother who passed away a few years ago was the latter. Kept everything whether it was working or broken, bought stuff whenever they went on sale, whether they needed it or not, etc.
 

tumorboy

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 24, 2002
23,850
27,076
113
Yeah...people are missing the boat calling for term limits. There should be a mandatory retirement age.
Well if u tie it to life expectancy. It's an incentive to look at legislation that helps people live longer. Be it economic, healthcare, environment, etc.
 

BubsFinn

HR Legend
Nov 20, 2004
27,341
20,749
113
It seems like being in the Congress or the Senate must be an awesome gig.

Is it power? Ego? Money (like insider tips)? All 3?

I simply don't get it. You are in a situation where 1/2 of your "co-workers" dislike you and 40%+ of your constituents dislike you. You are a part of government that gets a 10% approval rating. Sitting in on dreadful committees with 25 people on it that don't accomplish anything. Sitting in the big chamber hearing about all sorts of nonsense.

Then you get to go back to your home state and have coffee with people arguing about the price of coffee (inflation) or gas prices, hearing stories about their neighbor's cousin's house getting broken into and when are you going to fix crime?

You get to listen to people bitch, moan, complain and bore the sh*t out of you every day,

Then you have to go around raising money so you can do it all again for several more years?

Ugh.
I think you have the wrong impression about Congress. Half of them do not hate the other half. They all go to the same cocktail parties, banquets, and stuff. Their “fights” are mostly political theater for the masses. They work together to keep each other in Congress. They give one another talking points they can bring back to their constituents and use for re-election. That’s how it’s done.
 

BGHAWK

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
17,408
9,919
113
Rather than term limits, maybe put an age limit like 65 or 70, that once you reach that age, you can no longer run for re-election. Supreme Court judges, when you reach age 75 or even 80 you are done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkFan1298

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,171
14,405
113
Rather than term limits, maybe put an age limit like 65 or 70, that once you reach that age, you can no longer run for re-election. Supreme Court judges, when you reach age 75 or even 80 you are done.
I lean more towards capping how many years in office you can serve, like 30 years total and you’re out.
 

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,895
32,057
113
Nancy is 81. Mitch is 79. Biden is 79.

It is pretty crazy thinking these folks are at the highest levels of two branches of the US Government and they are older than freakin Baby Boomers. Another way to look at it is that it is is 2022 and our nation is being lead by the Silent Generation born between 1928-1945.
This is what makes me wonder: Where are all the people who are in their 50's and 60's that should be running for these positions?
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
70,944
35,586
113
you can’t always get what you want!

Nole-4-Life

HR Heisman
Jun 7, 2005
9,319
823
113
Why not both!
I really think with term limits you're going to miss out on some good people. I mean say you have a good paying secure job. You gonna quit that to run for a job that may only last 6 years, then you're back on the market? I know some places might allow a leave of absence, but most won't. The mandatory age requirement will let you run until you're forced to retire or get beat. I think that would entice more people to give up good jobs to be "public servants."

Just my opinion.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,171
14,405
113
I really think with term limits you're going to miss out on some good people. I mean say you have a good paying secure job. You gonna quit that to run for a job that may only last 6 years, then you're back on the market? I know some places might allow a leave of absence, but most won't. The mandatory age requirement will let you run until you're forced to retire or get beat. I think that would entice more people to give up good jobs to be "public servants."

Just my opinion.
In the House especially, the number of truly competitive seats has shrunk drastically thanks to gerrymandering. So people like Gaetz or AOC or Greene to name 3, are absolutely safe in a general election, and the only danger they will ever face is a primary challenger, so they only have to worry about appeasing their base. So unless they ROYALLY screw up, they’re not losing in November…ever. Same for senators in many of the solid Red or Blue states. It was an absolute fluke that Doug Jones won that special election in AL. No Democrat is winning a statewide election there any time soon. Same for a Republican in a Senate race in California, unless the governor is Republican and he nominates one to fill an opening.