Anonymous #2 9w

At this point most of them just disagree to disagree.

4

Anonymous #3 9w

Yeah because famously greed stops at the $1mil/year mark

1

Anonymous #5 9w

If people are motivated by greed wouldn’t you want an important job to pay more?

2

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

I didn’t say people are motivated by greed, I think if we want proper representation further separating the president from the plight of your average citizen is a terrible idea

7

Anonymous #5 9w

You know what happens when you don’t pay government reps well? Only rich people become government reps. Look up how much Nebraska pays their senators and all of them are pretty well off or old retire people which were also not supposed to like.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

Right because not rich people have such an easy time getting into politics already

4

Anonymous #5 9w

$1m/year is what we call an example…

1

Anonymous #5 9w

the issue is we need systematic reform to achieve what OP claims to be their favored outcome, but they’re too stubborn to accept or acknowledge that unless the DNC were to outwardly call for it. OPs basically what we refer to as “blue maga”

3

Anonymous #6 9w

ultimately, paying the president a higher wage will not solve the issue of legalized bribery and corruption within the United States. it *might* make it less likely for the president, but I’d suspect it wouldn’t actually make a difference within our current political structure

1

Anonymous #5 9w

The question is what makes it easier, obviously for separate reasons well off and well connected people have advantages in elections.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

What does that even mean lol? What systemic reform am I against?

1

Anonymous #6 9w

I’m calling for more things than just raising the presidents salary.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

which is why we need to overhaul our political framework to better represent a democracy, rather than the current system which is arguably closer to an oligarchy (well, “was” I should say. now we’re rapidly backsliding) imo completely banning any and all campaign contributions and financial motivations from potential candidates, and making the discovery of such an immediate disqualification from office, while go a bit further than raising the salary of the presidency

1

Anonymous #6 9w

I explicitly call for that in the post you’re currently replying under so idk who you’re arguing with or what systemic change I’m against?

1

Anonymous #6 9w

oh! I should’ve added in that last part: including the discovery of undisclosed conflicts of interest, or market collusion, insider trading, etc etc.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

you mentioned insider trading and raising the salary of the presidency.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

Wow if only I said that in the post. Too bad I’m against systemic change or something bc of blue maga.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

i guess I should’ve framed my statement mentioning insider trading as agreeing with you? what do you want from me lol

1

Anonymous #6 9w

I didn’t mention it I said it should be illegal like you should arrest the president if they make trades that conflict with their office.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

Do I seriously need to screenshot your own post in order for you to recall what you stated? you mentioned insider trading, which I agree with, but do not act like that’s synonymous with everything else I brought up.

3

Anonymous #6 9w

You’re acting like we’re disagreeing but then you just repeated what I said and called me blue maga lol. Just kinda dishonest unless if you didn’t read the entire post.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

but you’re only talking about the president, and you only mentioned insider trading. this issue is not isolated to the presidency; it is shared across the entire federal government. why do you think we are criticized abroad for having legalized bribery?

1

Anonymous #6 9w

What systemic change do you think I’m against? That’s the part I’m not getting.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

Ok so you’re just being dishonest you saw the post.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

When did I ever say it’s isolated to only the president? Me not mentioning something doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s an issue.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

I’m being dishonest after you just attempted to equate your brief post which only mentioned the presidency, it’s salary, and the president engaging in insider trading, with my comments discussing the corruption within our entire government? you’re called blue maga because you act exactly like maga, but for the DNC instead of Trump, which is why I stated that initially. in terms of systemic change aside from what I listed above, which you seemingly couldn’t comprehend in the first place:

1

Anonymous #6 9w

we need to overhaul the entire electoral system, removing the electoral college, heavily expanding representation within the house (and I’d argue senate), implement mandatory ranked choice voting in *every election*, and put term limits on Supreme Court justices (while also raising the amount of justices serving on the court)

1

Anonymous #6 9w

No you’re being dishonest by acting like I’m against other change bc I didn’t mention it in this specific post. Also if I only support change supported by democrats what big democrats are calling for the president to be paid more?

1

Anonymous #6 9w

even further, I’d argue we should overhaul both the senate and house to be more representative of a parliamentary, completely deconstructing the arbitrary two-party system in favor of a multi-party system.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

Again what systemic change am I against?

1

Anonymous #6 9w

Lmao. Can’t believe you people can vote. Thank god not too many people agree. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices? Getting rid of electoral college? What a joke

0

Anonymous #6 9w

Ive literally called for most of these things? Are these supposed to be the things I’m against? I can send you a previous post even if you don’t believe me.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

I didn’t say you were against it because you don’t mention it; I stated you were against it because that’s how I’ve come to remember you from our past interactions. If I am incorrect, I apologize plain and simply; but don’t act as if your post stated anything along the lines of what I did in my comments. You explicitly limited your scope to the presidency.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

I think the only thing you’ve mentioned that I would be against is a multi party proportional system. If that’s what you mean.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

hence why you have no say in whether someone else can vote or not, regardless of whether you’d like to have that ability. yes. Term limits for the Supreme Court, expansions of the Supreme Court, and bottom-up overhauls of our congress. if you don’t like that, then good for you? I welcome you to share your reasoning as to why you think they are bad ideas.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

maybe that’s where my confusion is coming from; either way I apologize for making the assumptions that you would be opposed to the systemic change necessary to achieve what you called for in your post - that was a “jumped the gun” mistake on my part.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

You keep implying I’m implying something by just talking about the presidency in the post. I literally mentioned state senators in the reply just above yours I obviously think this concept applies to more than just the president. I just think the constant trying to assume what my “evil” intentions are is annoying. Meanwhile you’re just listing off things I agree with while you call me blue maga.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 9w

Yk what I didn’t even process that comment of yours from earlier mentioning senators, I should apologize for accusing you of hyper fixating on the presidency as well. like I said earlier, my reasoning for coming at you as I did (which is not to say that it was justified, as I can see that I came at you a bit too aggressive) was because of past interactions between us; but obviously the emotions behind those interactions swayed my response off the bat.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

i will try and work on that, and I do apologize for my aggression towards you.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

Thank you I jump the gun a lot too it’s ok. I just prefer people respond to what I say instead of labeling me x thing then assuming what I’m for. I’m also pretty explicit with what labels I do identify with and I’m fine with people judging those.

1

Anonymous #6 9w

It’s all cool I do the same I like to argue so I get it.

1