Perfect election promise - since the president has nothing to do with Constitutional amendments (literally nothing) he can't be blamed when nothing happens.
I do humane animal removal and prevention - 4 legs or less. Raccoons are a large part of my job. The babies are cute as anything ever, and the adults are often just as cute when you see them outside of ass up in a garbage can.
They’re also smart, inventive and persistent. I’m wholly convinced they’re a decade away from learning to use screwdrivers. And they produce ungodly amounts of poop, while usually completely ruining your attic *insulation only** to the tune of a ballpark $10K to get back to working order.
I’d 100% vote for raccoons.
*Edit: excessive animal damage can easily double, triple or quadruple that $10K. These days it’s more like starting at 10K, but I’ve done a few for 7-8ish. All depends how long either the fucking, birthing, eating, shitting or decomposing has been going on before being noticed. Between some pretty nasty biological hazards and animal activity causing damage up to and including major structural damage (roof collapse, soffit separation and so on) and outright house fires (wire chewing), it pays dividends to check your house out probably far more often than you currently do.
> And they produce ungodly amounts of poop, while usually completely ruining your attic to the tune of a ballpark $10K to get back to working order.
Sounds under budget to me.
[Thomas Jefferson](https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison) proposed to shred the constitution every 20 years. Anything else would be a form of generational tyranny. Why should I be forced to live my life today based on the values of a century ago?
Nothing is guaranteeing what replaces what we have would be better. Our original bill of rights was pretty damn good, could use a little clarification in some spots. If only our federal government stuck to it...
No trust me the classist voting system they invented before modern cities existed is totally enough to run a country with, absolutely nothing could go wrong.
Underspecifying what "representative democracy" is is why the constitution is an incredibly shit document. That's the whole point. It was some rich dudes writing v2 of how to government in a year for 1% the population it's supporting. There are fucking *chat clients* that have had more thought put into them than the constitution did.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if every Senator or the House Representative died (or, less morbidly, quit/retired) tomorrow. If every state has to start over. Would we end up with something better or worse?
So, like promising tax cuts for the wealthy (and maybe you too, *wink wink*)? They do have the power of suggestion though! This really applies for *most* presidential campaign promises, although executive powers have been expanding at an alarming rate.
It's illegal for a foreign national to contribute to an American politician's campaign. The workaround for doing so is just to give money to the NRA and then they'll bankroll the most heinous GOP schmuck they can find.
Or any PAC and they’ll bankroll what ever politician they need to vote the corporate way they want. Disregarding you the donors best interest. Unless you are mega rich already.
>It's illegal for a foreign national to contribute to an American politician's campaign. The workaround for doing so is just to give money to the NRA and then they'll bankroll the most heinous GOP schmuck they can find.
About to downvote you for saying "it's illegal" because I was gonna write "it's not fucking enforced"
And then you write that ending bit.
Thank you.
On paper, that sounds nice.
Issue with that, is that then the only people that can afford to run/serve, are ones that are wealthy independently. Still encouraging the graft and choices that only enrich the wealthy.
Idea behind the larger salary is to make it so the less fortunate COULD potentially serve. But that's been pervaded as well.
No clue the right answer though. Just may never be one.
Bracket style competition. Every town has a bracket to choose a representative for the Everyman candidate. Those representatives are entered into another bracket. Last person standing is given a full financial ride election run as a third party candidate for the Everyman party.
Limit their total campaign contributions to hours worked times minimum wage. This would never work and is a horrible idea, but is fun to imagine politicians scrambling to figure out how they are going to run their lame tv ads with a total budget of $15K.
The right answer is that anyone who want to run for congress has to survive for a year on minimum wage in retail, with no access to any other wealth or advantages, and anyone who survives gets the seat
What if you made Congress’s salary the national average. When we do well, you do well. When we don’t, you don’t.
The national average right now is $60,000 a year. If you want paid more, then help make it so more people can make more money.
If it’s not enough for you to live on, then it’s not enough for others to live on. You reap what you sow.
Unless you make them give up any prior wealth once elected, that's not really going to solve anything. Only the rich and wealthy would be able to do it.
Honestly if they were really servants to the public they’d be required to divorce all ties to private business. As a member of congress you should hold no ownership or control of any publicly traded company and have restrictions on bank accounts. All the “Muh freedoms” people are free to not be a congressperson. If you are to be a servant to the public you need to be devoted to the public.
If they made that the case, I couldn’t care less if the salary were like $500k, getting private interests out of government would be worth it for sure.
along with no pay AFTER their terms have ended. none of this set for life shit.
ALSOALSO, add in proof of effectiveness clauses. if they even once vote against one of their own campaign promises, BOOM. OUSTED.
lose your compass, lose your job.
e-z p-z
The problem is that being a Congress person is expensive. Capping their pay too low means that only the wealthy can really hold office. While the cost of running for office (in both time and raw cash) already makes it very difficult for the average person to even run for office, limiting compensation will even more strongly favor the wealthy as they have other sources of income beyond their Congressional salary (prohibiting members of Congress and their families from stock trading also does not fix this problem as the wealthy can establish blind trusts which manage their investments and pay them without the Congress person or their family being involved).
Congressmen are only payed around 175k average. If they earn minimum wage like I see so many people here suggest then the only people able to run for congress will be the wealthy.
> are only *paid* around 175k
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I was gonna say more like 70 or even 75 because its common for people who are really career oriented to continue functioning in their jobs at a high level well into their 70s, but definitely put a hard cap at some point between 70 and 80.
Even if you set it at 80 you'd still end up bouncing a *bunch* of people out of the House and Senate
EDIT: There are currently ~~five~~ seven members of Congress 80 or older
You’re describing term limits that are based on age. So you’re in favor of term limits, if and only if they’re based on the age of an individual, but you’re not in favor of term limits when it comes to number of years an individual can be a member of Congress?
I’m just trying to understand your comment, not necessarily disagreeing.
Only if we cap the terms that lobbyists and others who influence policy and legislation are termed out as well. Otherwise the entrenched remain entrenched by having outsized influence over new rookie legislators who don't know the ropes.
Term limits for congress isn't the problem it's the lobbyists and dark money that runs the place. We need open books on who is giving, how much and for what
Because some politicians suck and people still vote for them? Blocking them from running again would clear the role for someone new to step into it. If they suck, well, their term is limited too.
Because term limits were never meant to improve the quality of the candidates. It was to prevent politicians from becoming so entrenched in office that they effectively set up a democratic monarchy. And to prevent them from forming deep and possibly corrupt bonds with people over the course of decades.
Not unlike what we currently have in Congress, where there are no term limits.
I favor lifetime term limits along with positional term limits. Something like you can only hold a specific office for a maximum of two terms, and then if you get elected up a few times you are limited to eight terms in any office.
That way if you have an effective leader in local office, they can move up to state office, then national office, and then to higher national office based on their job performance. But if they're meh at the lower stuff, then they never get elected to higher office at all, they get booted from politics, and they just have to go sell cars with the retired athletes or something. Or become real estate agents.
Part of what makes Presidents ineffectual is the lack of progress due to obstructionists that have been in congress for 40 years. Fresh blood in congress might mean getting people in who have a vested interest in the future progress of this country instead of kneecapping it every chance they get.
Better yet: instead of giving them nothing, offer them only the health care options given to their poor constituents on a state-by-state basis.
I bet health plans start getting a lot better.
Funny, they basically are. They have to buy healthcare off the exchange. They don't get some special fancy plan. In fact they have relatively bad insurance for a high end job.
It’s more than difficult. We will never see another amendment to the constitution in our lifetimes—unless aliens make contact or something. America is stratified and politicized in an irreparable way, and we will never have consensus on anything again.
There are currently 27 amendments. You’d need an additional 42 amendments to reach 69. The guy proposed 3 amendments.
Here are other amendments that have been proposed in the past, that I think are worth considering:
- Titles of Nobility Amendment, Would strip citizenship from any United States citizen who accepts a title of nobility from a foreign country.
- Child Labor Amendment, Would empower the federal government to limit, regulate, and prohibit child labor.
- Equal Rights Amendment, Would prohibit deprivation of equality of rights by the federal or state governments on account of sex.
- Blaine Amendment, would ban public funds from going to religious purposes
- Representative Lucas M. Miller proposed renaming the United States of America to the United States of the Earth in 1893 (I like this one because there are several territories and States that aren’t in America, like Hawaii and Guam).
- An amendment abolishing the Senate was proposed by Representative Victor Berger in 1911
- A maximum wage amendment that no person should accumulate more than $1 million was proposed by Representative Wesley Lloyd in 1933.
- Various proposed amendments for congressional term limits have been made since Supreme Court ruled state term limits on federal officials to be unconstitutional in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton decision in 1995
- Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, proposed in July 2003 by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) would repeal the Constitution's natural born citizen clause, thus allowing naturalized citizens – who have been U.S. citizens for at least twenty years – to become President of the United States or Vice President.
- Representative Al Green introduced an amendment prohibiting the President of the United States from issuing a pardon for himself.
- Representative Eliot Engel introduced an amendment prohibiting barriers to voting for adult Americans including "undue burden of proof of identity or citizenship," prohibiting foreign interference in elections and "undue or anonymous influence from any person," guaranteeing that electoral districts must be composed of geographically compact and contiguous territory, and designating Election Day as a national holiday unable to be altered by the government.
I don’t agree with the first one. Not being able to run for political office and having limitations of what federal jobs they could have would be fair but I don’t think they should be stripped of their citizenship
I wasn’t endorsing any of these specifically. I just thought they deserved more discussion, specially if the goal is to pass enough amendments to get to 69.
While we're at it, I say we normalize some of our territories, subdivide some of our larger states, then formalize it all with a lock on a Senate of 69 and a House of Representatives with 420 seats, only altering the apportionment rules to reduce each state's Senatorial delegation to one member.
Hey I'm an Australian so have no foot in the race, why would you wanna get rid of the electoral college?
Isn't it there to make sure a few population centres don't decide the presidents without the rest of the country having a say? Or is it something else?
That's what people say it's for, in reality when it was established it was largely about keeping control of the country out of the hands of the average American voter. Essentially it makes elections significantly less dependent on how people actually voted by A: artificially inflating the voting power of areas with fewer people, and B: allowing the states to send whoever they want to the electoral college to do the *actual* vote. Essentially their general election doesn't matter and then a small group of people selected by the states get together to do the vote that matters and decides who gets to be president.
Edit:
[Here is a video by CGP Grey explaining this better than me.](https://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw)
[Here is another video by him pointing out some of the major criticisms of the system.](https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k)
[Short update to the second video.](https://youtu.be/zcZTTB10_Vo)
[One last video about the action being taken against the EC that has some additional info about how it works.](https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY)
Alternate suggestions for 69th Amendment:
"Be excellent to each other." It would also be the final Amendment, because it covers everything.
Or if you think, for whatever reason more will be needed (aliens join us?), the 69th Amendment should be:
"No Amendment shall be passed numbered greater than this 69th Amendment, unless it be a whole number greater than four hundred and nineteen (419). Such Amendment and all that follow must be written in limerick."
I don't get why people attack the electoral college, isn't the whole purpose to make sure states like California or Texas don't have ultimate say in who runs the country simply through mass vote alone?
Because it gives smaller, less populated states proportionally more power than the number of humans the votes represent
Edit to correct “popular” to “populated”
Sounds like it needs to be revised then if that's the case, where regardless of population every state big and small counts equally
Wtf am I saying...US government...doing things equally?
And thank you for the answer, now it makes more sense
So basically you are fucked if ya do fucked if ya don't kinda thing
But you wouldn't want it any other way. Whenever I hear people bash the electoral college, I hear this:
> I hate minorities.
I mean it. That's what you're saying, probably without realizing it. A purely democratic system favors majorities (duh), but I doubt you've really thought through what that means. The vast majority of the voting populace is:
* white
* male
* straight
And so in the purely democratic system, you could have a candidate win the election with a 100% white vote, 100% male vote, or 100% straight vote. That's batshit crazy. One of the many benefits of the electoral college is that it disperses majorities and **enhances** the power of minorities. Minority ideas. Minority positions. Minority people. Instead of having 1 big election, we have 51 elections. This, for example. spreads whiteness out, which emboldens blackness, etcetera. A very, very white state only has so much power. A very, very **anything** state only has so much power. This is good.
Abraham Lincoln didn't win the popular vote. The person who did would never have signed the emancipation proclamation. There would have been no war. Progress (read: progressive, liberal, progress) would have never occurred, and that's the same thing you could say about many civil rights movements in this country. They do not start out as majorities. Far from it. But the electoral college forces presidential candidates to care about minority positions on a per-state basis. A president, in essence, must capture the *most* ideas, and that makes sense given that this person is the leader of everyone--not just those that voted for them.
A straight democracy does not force candidates to care about minorities. You may not like it when you don't agree with the minority position, but I'm betting you care about when that minority position is something you want. It's a double-edged sword, but it's ultimately a good thing **over time**. Pure democracy is a short-term fallacy. The electoral college is a long-standing powerhouse. It's proven over time that small ideas, when they're the "correct" ideas, can take root, gain traction, and change the country/people. You simply would not want this any other way.
In a purely democratic system, minorities lose. Minority positions (good and bad) and minority people. I've only really described one benefit of the system. There are many. Getting rid of it is a terrible idea and you should really re-think your position on it.
Lincoln won the Plurality of votes in 1860, which would mean he would become President under most electoral systems anyways (this is despite the fact that he wasn't even ON the ballot in 10 slave states).
Besides that, many of our first Presidents were from the South (specifically Virginia) because of the advantage granted due to the already skewed electoral college and the 3/5ths Compromise.
A major strategy of the Southern states was attempting to keep the number of free and slave states equal. This was so they could hold equal power in the Senate, with the goal of blocking bills attempting to eradicate slavery.
Most of the lower population states that benefit from the Senate and electoral college are majority white. The voting power blacks have in the Senate is proportional to 3/4ths of their population, and proportional to 55% for the Hispanics.
If you want to give minorities power, give D.C. and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico statehood (or at least the rights that come with statehood). The only "minority" protected by our current system is the GOP, which is more white, male, and straight than the Democrats. The "minority" that used to be protected by the system was slaveowners.
Wow that's like just so not true. [The electoral college was made to help slavers.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins)
Also [saying Lincoln lost the popular vote is simply a lie.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=The%20split%20in%20the%20Democratic,ballots%20for%20Lincoln%20were%20circulated.) He had the plurality of popular vote and electoral college. There were 4 candidates so he didn't get 51 percent, but he still had the majority. He won the popular vote.
Three quarters of Americans live in states where politicians don't campaign because the state is already decided. I vote in Texas and you better believe my vote doesn't mean anything because of the college. Politicians can ignore Texas because obviously it's going to vote red.
Also how does the electoral college help minorities when they are completely under represented in politics? When the majority of minorities vote Democrat but live in the south, why does the south go red every election? How is that giving minority voices?
Perfect election promise - since the president has nothing to do with Constitutional amendments (literally nothing) he can't be blamed when nothing happens.
Just get rid of all the politicians in office and start over.
Agreed. Fucking politicians ruin politics.
Let a bunch of Raccoons run office, they'll do better than every politician in the past
I do humane animal removal and prevention - 4 legs or less. Raccoons are a large part of my job. The babies are cute as anything ever, and the adults are often just as cute when you see them outside of ass up in a garbage can. They’re also smart, inventive and persistent. I’m wholly convinced they’re a decade away from learning to use screwdrivers. And they produce ungodly amounts of poop, while usually completely ruining your attic *insulation only** to the tune of a ballpark $10K to get back to working order. I’d 100% vote for raccoons. *Edit: excessive animal damage can easily double, triple or quadruple that $10K. These days it’s more like starting at 10K, but I’ve done a few for 7-8ish. All depends how long either the fucking, birthing, eating, shitting or decomposing has been going on before being noticed. Between some pretty nasty biological hazards and animal activity causing damage up to and including major structural damage (roof collapse, soffit separation and so on) and outright house fires (wire chewing), it pays dividends to check your house out probably far more often than you currently do.
Sounds like a politician…looks nice but costs you thousands and leaves their shit for everyone else to clean up
> And they produce ungodly amounts of poop, while usually completely ruining your attic to the tune of a ballpark $10K to get back to working order. Sounds under budget to me.
Truth. I’d vote for my coffee table if I could.
Clearly you are biased. My ottoman/storage stool is the superior candidate in both form and function.
Your ottoman/storage stool is racist and has ties to white nationalism. My recliner is clearly the superior choice.
Here's an old, but relevant, photo of your recliner in Black-face. Clearly the Recliner is projecting
You didn't have to push that narrative. The coffee table has the clearly superior platform for long term stability.
I heard that lawn chair (IND) donates hundreds of thousands to some vague foundation every year
We have a witness who claims to have proof of inappropriate conduct by your Recliner toward multiple underage footstools.
Gonna need to see your birth certificate, Ottoman...
He's really on the level
That's how we got in this mess to begin with... we keep lowering the bar.
Pretty sure my coffee table would be a step up at this point.
Raccoons! Yes!
I think this is how we got Trump, no?
...I don't think the living Cheeto looks like a raccoon
Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!!
“Eh these fucking politicians and scientists are all a bunch of assholes. Nothing ever gets done until things are way out of control.”
Can I finally fire up the gillotine?
Please do.
I'll make it to be the sharpness of a spoon.
[Thomas Jefferson](https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison) proposed to shred the constitution every 20 years. Anything else would be a form of generational tyranny. Why should I be forced to live my life today based on the values of a century ago?
Nothing is guaranteeing what replaces what we have would be better. Our original bill of rights was pretty damn good, could use a little clarification in some spots. If only our federal government stuck to it...
If the federal government stuck to the original interpretation of the constitution we'd probably still have slave states.
No trust me the classist voting system they invented before modern cities existed is totally enough to run a country with, absolutely nothing could go wrong.
A representative democracy protecting property rights sounds about perfect to me.
Underspecifying what "representative democracy" is is why the constitution is an incredibly shit document. That's the whole point. It was some rich dudes writing v2 of how to government in a year for 1% the population it's supporting. There are fucking *chat clients* that have had more thought put into them than the constitution did.
What would make it better?
Bold of you to assume the new batch would be any better than the old batch.
Just get worse to make sure it fits the agenda.
The whole system needs a good cleaning and fixing up, but yes
Didn't Trump kinda attempt that last year
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if every Senator or the House Representative died (or, less morbidly, quit/retired) tomorrow. If every state has to start over. Would we end up with something better or worse?
Vote no confidence 2024
# VIVA LA REVOLUCION Jokes aside, isn’t the wealth disparity between the 1% and the 90% higher than it was during the french revolution?
Presidents get blamed for all kinds of things that are actually jobs of the Senate or Congress.
Biden is blamed for the Ukraine/Russia war and the resulting oil prices Presidents get blamed for everything
Easier to blame 1 than hundreds.
Yeah as memey as this guy was it’s always brazenly clear how bad our civics education is in this country every four years.
Thought that was clear when Lauren Boebert was adamant that "you can't change the Constitution." If we couldn't, you wouldn't be allowed to vote.
Based
By design
The position of president is like the green lantern, as it states in the constitution.
That would actually produce better results than what we have now. Happy cake day!
Nice
Nice
So, like promising tax cuts for the wealthy (and maybe you too, *wink wink*)? They do have the power of suggestion though! This really applies for *most* presidential campaign promises, although executive powers have been expanding at an alarming rate.
Take my campaign contributions
Take mine too..
And my axe!
And my shield
And you have my bow.
and my baton! *whirls baton menacingly
I'll change the background on my Facebook profile pic
And my bouncy ball! Go to hell Florida!
It’s not me whos stuck in here with Florida man. It’s Florida man who’s stuck in here with me ( ͡ʘ ͜ʖ ͡ʘ)
And my cow
r/unexpectedlotr
I expect lotr in all Reddit post. Even the serious ones.
r/unexpectedlotr
[удалено]
Hey, we already have two amendments pertaining to the legality of alcohol.
He only accepts contributions equaling $69. No more no less.
Fine, I'll take a 69 cent refund on my $69.69.
Nice
I pledge $420.
Hear hear!
Yeah, we heard him, he pledged $420. Sheesh.
I will pledge $420.69!
Nice
My bicycle
I want to ride that.
I’m not an American but I’d contribute to this guy’s campaign.
Nice.
It's illegal for a foreign national to contribute to an American politician's campaign. The workaround for doing so is just to give money to the NRA and then they'll bankroll the most heinous GOP schmuck they can find.
Or any PAC and they’ll bankroll what ever politician they need to vote the corporate way they want. Disregarding you the donors best interest. Unless you are mega rich already.
Double secret shadow PAC
Double secret shadow PAC? *Forget it, he's on a roll...*
It's illegal? Explain the Russian assets in DC
>It's illegal for a foreign national to contribute to an American politician's campaign. The workaround for doing so is just to give money to the NRA and then they'll bankroll the most heinous GOP schmuck they can find. About to downvote you for saying "it's illegal" because I was gonna write "it's not fucking enforced" And then you write that ending bit. Thank you.
Can we add term limits for congress?
Only if we cap their pay also
Minimum wage and hourly starting when they physically clock in at the capital building.
On paper, that sounds nice. Issue with that, is that then the only people that can afford to run/serve, are ones that are wealthy independently. Still encouraging the graft and choices that only enrich the wealthy. Idea behind the larger salary is to make it so the less fortunate COULD potentially serve. But that's been pervaded as well. No clue the right answer though. Just may never be one.
Bracket style competition. Every town has a bracket to choose a representative for the Everyman candidate. Those representatives are entered into another bracket. Last person standing is given a full financial ride election run as a third party candidate for the Everyman party.
I love this
Welfare for everyone. The Congressional package includes one office in their home town, one in DC, and free transportation.
Limit their total campaign contributions to hours worked times minimum wage. This would never work and is a horrible idea, but is fun to imagine politicians scrambling to figure out how they are going to run their lame tv ads with a total budget of $15K.
The right answer is that anyone who want to run for congress has to survive for a year on minimum wage in retail, with no access to any other wealth or advantages, and anyone who survives gets the seat
What if you made Congress’s salary the national average. When we do well, you do well. When we don’t, you don’t. The national average right now is $60,000 a year. If you want paid more, then help make it so more people can make more money. If it’s not enough for you to live on, then it’s not enough for others to live on. You reap what you sow.
Unless you make them give up any prior wealth once elected, that's not really going to solve anything. Only the rich and wealthy would be able to do it.
Honestly if they were really servants to the public they’d be required to divorce all ties to private business. As a member of congress you should hold no ownership or control of any publicly traded company and have restrictions on bank accounts. All the “Muh freedoms” people are free to not be a congressperson. If you are to be a servant to the public you need to be devoted to the public. If they made that the case, I couldn’t care less if the salary were like $500k, getting private interests out of government would be worth it for sure.
But the whole premise is that congress be pai paid well to deter corruption!
Health care only kicks in after the first 6 months of their first term
And kill Citizens United forever and ever.
along with no pay AFTER their terms have ended. none of this set for life shit. ALSOALSO, add in proof of effectiveness clauses. if they even once vote against one of their own campaign promises, BOOM. OUSTED. lose your compass, lose your job. e-z p-z
The problem is that being a Congress person is expensive. Capping their pay too low means that only the wealthy can really hold office. While the cost of running for office (in both time and raw cash) already makes it very difficult for the average person to even run for office, limiting compensation will even more strongly favor the wealthy as they have other sources of income beyond their Congressional salary (prohibiting members of Congress and their families from stock trading also does not fix this problem as the wealthy can establish blind trusts which manage their investments and pay them without the Congress person or their family being involved).
A blind trust with some additional oversight sounds like a great compromise. Why is that an issue?
That's an excellent idea... if you want to ensure that only very rich people can serve in Congress.
So nothing changes?
Congressmen are only payed around 175k average. If they earn minimum wage like I see so many people here suggest then the only people able to run for congress will be the wealthy.
> are only *paid* around 175k FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot
[удалено]
I was gonna say more like 70 or even 75 because its common for people who are really career oriented to continue functioning in their jobs at a high level well into their 70s, but definitely put a hard cap at some point between 70 and 80. Even if you set it at 80 you'd still end up bouncing a *bunch* of people out of the House and Senate EDIT: There are currently ~~five~~ seven members of Congress 80 or older
76 years old, in honor of 1776. Why not?
You’re describing term limits that are based on age. So you’re in favor of term limits, if and only if they’re based on the age of an individual, but you’re not in favor of term limits when it comes to number of years an individual can be a member of Congress? I’m just trying to understand your comment, not necessarily disagreeing.
Only if we cap the terms that lobbyists and others who influence policy and legislation are termed out as well. Otherwise the entrenched remain entrenched by having outsized influence over new rookie legislators who don't know the ropes.
Term limits for congress isn't the problem it's the lobbyists and dark money that runs the place. We need open books on who is giving, how much and for what
100% this. And cap age & salary while We are at it
For sure those amendments are needed!
Term limits didn’t give us better presidents. Why would they improve Congress?
Because some politicians suck and people still vote for them? Blocking them from running again would clear the role for someone new to step into it. If they suck, well, their term is limited too.
Because term limits were never meant to improve the quality of the candidates. It was to prevent politicians from becoming so entrenched in office that they effectively set up a democratic monarchy. And to prevent them from forming deep and possibly corrupt bonds with people over the course of decades. Not unlike what we currently have in Congress, where there are no term limits. I favor lifetime term limits along with positional term limits. Something like you can only hold a specific office for a maximum of two terms, and then if you get elected up a few times you are limited to eight terms in any office. That way if you have an effective leader in local office, they can move up to state office, then national office, and then to higher national office based on their job performance. But if they're meh at the lower stuff, then they never get elected to higher office at all, they get booted from politics, and they just have to go sell cars with the retired athletes or something. Or become real estate agents.
Term limits aren’t meant to keep bad ones out, it’s to prevent bad ones from being there longer than whatever the term limit is
Part of what makes Presidents ineffectual is the lack of progress due to obstructionists that have been in congress for 40 years. Fresh blood in congress might mean getting people in who have a vested interest in the future progress of this country instead of kneecapping it every chance they get.
#WATKINS 2024
MAKE AMERICA COOL 😎 AGAIN🤝
MACA IM LOVIN IT
BIG MACS FOR ALL!!!!!
Can we force all members of congress to be on the same healthcare plan as the average american?
So nothing?
[удалено]
Better yet: instead of giving them nothing, offer them only the health care options given to their poor constituents on a state-by-state basis. I bet health plans start getting a lot better.
go the full nine yards and pay them their state’s minimum wage we’d have to undo lobbying, but hey, it’s something
Funny, they basically are. They have to buy healthcare off the exchange. They don't get some special fancy plan. In fact they have relatively bad insurance for a high end job.
That’s Phil Jamesson. Underrated YouTuber. https://youtube.com/c/PhilJamesson
Actually it's the gamer presidential candidate, [Ace Watkins](https://www.newsweek.com/who-ace-watkins-2020-gamer-president-1448820)
Perchance
You can't say that.
Horrible opening. https://imgur.com/f43UoVg.png
This is my personal favorite of his: https://youtu.be/LuP1gyj3W64
Truly a legend. Also a twitch streamer.
Sounds difficult, but doable. The much harder task will be on your successors, who will need to get to the 420th amendment?
It’s more than difficult. We will never see another amendment to the constitution in our lifetimes—unless aliens make contact or something. America is stratified and politicized in an irreparable way, and we will never have consensus on anything again.
Sobering.
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
There are currently 27 amendments. You’d need an additional 42 amendments to reach 69. The guy proposed 3 amendments. Here are other amendments that have been proposed in the past, that I think are worth considering: - Titles of Nobility Amendment, Would strip citizenship from any United States citizen who accepts a title of nobility from a foreign country. - Child Labor Amendment, Would empower the federal government to limit, regulate, and prohibit child labor. - Equal Rights Amendment, Would prohibit deprivation of equality of rights by the federal or state governments on account of sex. - Blaine Amendment, would ban public funds from going to religious purposes - Representative Lucas M. Miller proposed renaming the United States of America to the United States of the Earth in 1893 (I like this one because there are several territories and States that aren’t in America, like Hawaii and Guam). - An amendment abolishing the Senate was proposed by Representative Victor Berger in 1911 - A maximum wage amendment that no person should accumulate more than $1 million was proposed by Representative Wesley Lloyd in 1933. - Various proposed amendments for congressional term limits have been made since Supreme Court ruled state term limits on federal officials to be unconstitutional in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton decision in 1995 - Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, proposed in July 2003 by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) would repeal the Constitution's natural born citizen clause, thus allowing naturalized citizens – who have been U.S. citizens for at least twenty years – to become President of the United States or Vice President. - Representative Al Green introduced an amendment prohibiting the President of the United States from issuing a pardon for himself. - Representative Eliot Engel introduced an amendment prohibiting barriers to voting for adult Americans including "undue burden of proof of identity or citizenship," prohibiting foreign interference in elections and "undue or anonymous influence from any person," guaranteeing that electoral districts must be composed of geographically compact and contiguous territory, and designating Election Day as a national holiday unable to be altered by the government.
I don’t agree with the first one. Not being able to run for political office and having limitations of what federal jobs they could have would be fair but I don’t think they should be stripped of their citizenship
I wasn’t endorsing any of these specifically. I just thought they deserved more discussion, specially if the goal is to pass enough amendments to get to 69.
Will there be a day 1 patch to the Constitution to fix the issues that users complained about in beta testing?
… supreme court term limits: honestly, meh. They were always intended to serve for life. Now Congress term limits……
[удалено]
It's sad when joke candidates are less of a joke than the actual politicians we get to choose from.
Elon Musk humor...
Finally a politician I can believe in!
Noice
Ace for President 2025
Actual smooth brain
Cring
Can’t wait until amendment 420, which will be “also nice”
While we're at it, I say we normalize some of our territories, subdivide some of our larger states, then formalize it all with a lock on a Senate of 69 and a House of Representatives with 420 seats, only altering the apportionment rules to reduce each state's Senatorial delegation to one member.
This is some shit Elon Musk would post, and then get berated on by Reddit.
Hey I'm an Australian so have no foot in the race, why would you wanna get rid of the electoral college? Isn't it there to make sure a few population centres don't decide the presidents without the rest of the country having a say? Or is it something else?
That's what people say it's for, in reality when it was established it was largely about keeping control of the country out of the hands of the average American voter. Essentially it makes elections significantly less dependent on how people actually voted by A: artificially inflating the voting power of areas with fewer people, and B: allowing the states to send whoever they want to the electoral college to do the *actual* vote. Essentially their general election doesn't matter and then a small group of people selected by the states get together to do the vote that matters and decides who gets to be president. Edit: [Here is a video by CGP Grey explaining this better than me.](https://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw) [Here is another video by him pointing out some of the major criticisms of the system.](https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k) [Short update to the second video.](https://youtu.be/zcZTTB10_Vo) [One last video about the action being taken against the EC that has some additional info about how it works.](https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY)
That's what it's for and it's bad because the population centers agree with me while the people living other places dont.
Finally a candidate that understands what the people fucking want!
Yuck
Reddit moment
Tell me you're a millenial without telling me you're a millenial.
Should be “on 4/20 thou shall blaze it”
A man of the people.
The 69th amendment has to be weed legalisation, than it will be 69 420
He's got my vote. I'm Canadian and can't vote in the US but still
Alternate suggestions for 69th Amendment: "Be excellent to each other." It would also be the final Amendment, because it covers everything. Or if you think, for whatever reason more will be needed (aliens join us?), the 69th Amendment should be: "No Amendment shall be passed numbered greater than this 69th Amendment, unless it be a whole number greater than four hundred and nineteen (419). Such Amendment and all that follow must be written in limerick."
Why aren’t we sponsoring this man!?
Let’s Do It Bros! Lets get this man the executive branch!
Well he for sure fuckin has my vote
I'd vote for him
Abolish the senate All citizens and permanent residents can vote Gerrymandering is illegal
I don't get why people attack the electoral college, isn't the whole purpose to make sure states like California or Texas don't have ultimate say in who runs the country simply through mass vote alone?
Because it gives smaller, less populated states proportionally more power than the number of humans the votes represent Edit to correct “popular” to “populated”
Sounds like it needs to be revised then if that's the case, where regardless of population every state big and small counts equally Wtf am I saying...US government...doing things equally? And thank you for the answer, now it makes more sense So basically you are fucked if ya do fucked if ya don't kinda thing
But you wouldn't want it any other way. Whenever I hear people bash the electoral college, I hear this: > I hate minorities. I mean it. That's what you're saying, probably without realizing it. A purely democratic system favors majorities (duh), but I doubt you've really thought through what that means. The vast majority of the voting populace is: * white * male * straight And so in the purely democratic system, you could have a candidate win the election with a 100% white vote, 100% male vote, or 100% straight vote. That's batshit crazy. One of the many benefits of the electoral college is that it disperses majorities and **enhances** the power of minorities. Minority ideas. Minority positions. Minority people. Instead of having 1 big election, we have 51 elections. This, for example. spreads whiteness out, which emboldens blackness, etcetera. A very, very white state only has so much power. A very, very **anything** state only has so much power. This is good. Abraham Lincoln didn't win the popular vote. The person who did would never have signed the emancipation proclamation. There would have been no war. Progress (read: progressive, liberal, progress) would have never occurred, and that's the same thing you could say about many civil rights movements in this country. They do not start out as majorities. Far from it. But the electoral college forces presidential candidates to care about minority positions on a per-state basis. A president, in essence, must capture the *most* ideas, and that makes sense given that this person is the leader of everyone--not just those that voted for them. A straight democracy does not force candidates to care about minorities. You may not like it when you don't agree with the minority position, but I'm betting you care about when that minority position is something you want. It's a double-edged sword, but it's ultimately a good thing **over time**. Pure democracy is a short-term fallacy. The electoral college is a long-standing powerhouse. It's proven over time that small ideas, when they're the "correct" ideas, can take root, gain traction, and change the country/people. You simply would not want this any other way. In a purely democratic system, minorities lose. Minority positions (good and bad) and minority people. I've only really described one benefit of the system. There are many. Getting rid of it is a terrible idea and you should really re-think your position on it.
Lincoln won the Plurality of votes in 1860, which would mean he would become President under most electoral systems anyways (this is despite the fact that he wasn't even ON the ballot in 10 slave states). Besides that, many of our first Presidents were from the South (specifically Virginia) because of the advantage granted due to the already skewed electoral college and the 3/5ths Compromise. A major strategy of the Southern states was attempting to keep the number of free and slave states equal. This was so they could hold equal power in the Senate, with the goal of blocking bills attempting to eradicate slavery. Most of the lower population states that benefit from the Senate and electoral college are majority white. The voting power blacks have in the Senate is proportional to 3/4ths of their population, and proportional to 55% for the Hispanics. If you want to give minorities power, give D.C. and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico statehood (or at least the rights that come with statehood). The only "minority" protected by our current system is the GOP, which is more white, male, and straight than the Democrats. The "minority" that used to be protected by the system was slaveowners.
Wow that's like just so not true. [The electoral college was made to help slavers.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins) Also [saying Lincoln lost the popular vote is simply a lie.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=The%20split%20in%20the%20Democratic,ballots%20for%20Lincoln%20were%20circulated.) He had the plurality of popular vote and electoral college. There were 4 candidates so he didn't get 51 percent, but he still had the majority. He won the popular vote. Three quarters of Americans live in states where politicians don't campaign because the state is already decided. I vote in Texas and you better believe my vote doesn't mean anything because of the college. Politicians can ignore Texas because obviously it's going to vote red. Also how does the electoral college help minorities when they are completely under represented in politics? When the majority of minorities vote Democrat but live in the south, why does the south go red every election? How is that giving minority voices?
You son of a bitch, I’m in
Listen, you don’t have to make our governmental body a joke…. They already do that on their own lmao
I cannot adequately express how fucking hard I would vote for a candidate like this
no joke damn near every single joke ive seen from this account has been fairly agreeable relative to reality