• nosuchanon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • Suru@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

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

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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).

    • Stormy@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

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

        • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          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?

            • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              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.

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              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.

              • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours 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.