brother/sister that’s just it. They are both the “fuck you, die” party. Neither one of the parties is on your side or gives a single shit about you, your wellbeing, your financial health, your mental health, or the rights of literally any of the little people. The government and the elites they side with use us as play things and want us to fight amongst ourselves and believe our party is the correct choice. They are all evil my friend

13

Anonymous OP 1d

W2 wage growth, cost of living, no wars all that matters. It’s all about the wage growth And neither party will realistically do a thing about it

6

Anonymous #1 1d

Idky anybody gives a fuck about politicians trading on advance knowledge of legislation getting passed. They have to disclose everything they buy and it doesn’t affect anybody or anything practically except supplement their pretty meager government salary. Campaign ads and dumb people make it out to be this big moral failing but it really has no tangible consequences that aren’t imagined. It sounds bad and leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths but that’s about it

6

Anonymous #3 23h

Not only do they trade, there are literally sites that track and organize every single stock trade made by congress, yet very few seem to realize this. https://www.capitoltrades.com/trades You're right about people being dumb though. I will again stand by a view I've had for years: a big chunk of the problems we have as a country, for the past many decades, the shitty politicians, policies, etc., are due to the continuous, rampant ignorance, apathy, and/ or lack of knowledge by so many voters.

1

Anonymous #3 23h

Truth, the need for new foreign wars, stock value/ GDP increases, and perpetual economic growth, continues to be demanded by the never-satisfied maw of neoliberalism and unrestrained capitalism...

1

Anonymous #3 23h

Damn, what part was the dealbreaker

1

Anonymous #4 22h

revolution doesn’t need to be violent. Yes, we should be pushing as the people for a major overhaul of the entire governmental system. No, the fact that more states are blue now doesn’t make a difference in the long term. Both parties are horrible and your life won’t improve because one party is in charge vs the other

7

Anonymous #4 22h

Calling somebody a pedo with no evidence and the “late stage capitalism” anti capitalist sentiment

0

Anonymous OP 22h

I used violent revolution as an extreme example in the other direction. I agree with you on the problems here, I just disagree that the democratic process does nothing; little changes add up, as do subtle societal impacts like greater voter turnout, broader education, grassroots movements, etc. If enough people could cooperate and agree though, then yes, larger changes would be welcome. What type of "major overhauls", specifically, were you picturing here? I like to hear genuine ideas laid out.

1

Anonymous #3 22h

I'll let the second thing pass because I do find the "late-stage capitalism" trigger line overused and a bit cringe at this point (not to mention that idea is a bit misunderstood by some), but... bruh, you do understand that Trump is one of the most overtly photographed, documented, and connected people with Epstein right? Does all of that evidence mean nothing?

1

Anonymous #3 22h

SuperPacs should probably be banned and made illegal though. I think I could get on board with that in the sense that accepting massive donations from corporations or ultra wealthy donors is pretty suspect. It likely has a lot to do with getting us into the current war with Iran. Wealthy Israeli donors / mossad assets or partners paid for like 1 / 3rd of Trump’s 2024 campaign financing.

4

Anonymous #3 22h

So in that sense I can agree with “take money from the big corporations”

6

Anonymous #3 22h

Lobbying, I’m not sure if it should be made illegal or what can practically be done about it but lobbyists do have a concerning amount of power and influence. It’s pretty weird how corporate and payroll taxes don’t seem to keep pace with income taxes over the decades and centuries of Americas history afai can tell maybe. I might have to look again, it’s been a while since I’ve looked but that’s my impression. I could get the graph later, it’s on my camera roll. There are a few actually

3

Anonymous #4 22h

well the yy word count is gonna be tough for this but a few major overhauls if we kept the current system would be- age cap for governmental positions. All senators and congressmen make the average salary of their state with restrictions of other income they can earn. Bills have to be only one singular issue at a time not multiple. The salary idea would make politicians realize what sorta lives the average citizen in their state lives and hopefully improve that.

6

Anonymous #4 22h

Groannn why don’t you go look into it comprehensively do I don’t have to write a paragraph again. I literally addressed this on here like a week ago

1

Anonymous #3 22h

so*

1

Anonymous OP 22h

The bill thing prevents a bunch of bullshit getting grouped together into one bill. Oh blank senator hates homeless people because they voted no on this homeless help bill and definitely not because four different senators added bullshit into the bill because they were going to vote no unless they got what they wanted added to the bill

2

Anonymous #3 22h

If we called everyone who ever took a photograph with Epstein there’d be a lot of high profile people in jail. I’m trying to like you man 😒 but I have no idea how somebody can say that with a straight face as if it’s a serious thing they’ve put forward, “you know Trump is the most overtly photographed with Epstein right?”

1

Anonymous #4 22h

for major changes, I could go on and on about the type of changes i personally think would help but two for the sake of brevity is changing the two party system into a MMP system where a proportional amount of votes goes towards the multitude of parties up for election and the parties would get seats based on votes. This would give us more options of party representation so we dont throw away our votes if we dont vote blue or red. also we are a melting pot and more representation is needed.

3

Anonymous #3 22h

He was a Mossad agent whose job was to connect with and Blackmail high profile people. Why are we still pretending this means something it doesn’t. It’s just irritating at this point and feels dumb and makes me lose respect for people who can’t sort it properly

1

Anonymous #3 22h

Excuse me, Mossad “asset” is probably more accurate. Although tbh he may have been more than that, who knows

1

Anonymous OP 22h

the second change is removing bias from news stations and not allowing governmental influence on the media the people consume. And yeah that’s hard to do or trust its being done right but it needs to be fixed someway somehow. perhaps limiting monetary contributions to news stations from parties in some way

4

Anonymous #3 22h

*called everybody who ever took a photograph with Epstein a confirmed Pedo 🐻

1

Anonymous OP 22h

^pretty true

1

Anonymous #3 22h

I mean idk about the Revolution or major overhaul of the constitution stuff but the rest is true. Who is in power politically ultimately never impacts your daily life practically at all aside from what news headlines you end up reading

1

Anonymous OP 21h

Incentivizing wage growth is not a bad idea imo But you could probably structure it better and I don’t think they need to be barred from owning certain assets. I suppose I wouldn’t complain too hard if it were implemented either though. It might cause / encourage a whole different breed of person to seek out civic service

1

Anonymous #3 21h

I think you’d have to do something more like a bonus is offered for every extra 1 k in both avg and median state wages. Like 25 k bonus for every 1 k added to median or avg while in office. You could probably structure it even better than that but that’s just an example. Some mathematician could probably come up with the best way to do it. You could come up with all kinds of creative compensation plans with bonuses conditional upon important stuff. It is actually a little weird that we don’t off

1

Anonymous #3 21h

offer our representatives bonuses for doing a better job, just the chance of reelection. Like no wonder. Right now things are just set up to incentivize collaboration with other wealthy entities or the advantage of stock trading while in office

1

Anonymous OP 19h

See, most of these things I could get behind (I think a lot of people could actually), and yes, they could be passed through the current legislative process. Hell, most of them have already been pitched at some point int he past few decades. I'll give an example with the single issue bill thing. You may not know this (I didn't until recently), but the concept of a single-isn't new. In fact, 43 states already have a single-issue rule enshrined in their state constitutions to varying degrees. 1/2

1

Anonymous #4 19h

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule Contrary to what people thing, there's also been several attempts to get this rule written into the federal constitution, as an amendment (it'd have to be one, since it affects the way laws would be written). You don't hear about this since those attempts went nowhere. You know who pitched most of them in recent years? Rand Paul, arguably one of the least-Maga and most-libertarian Republicans in Congress rn. Every attempt went nowhere, sadly.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

That first thing here is interesting, surprisingly never heard of MMP voting. I've supported ranked-choice voting for years, since that's talked about much more, but I'll have to look this one up, wonder which would be more ideal. The second thing I'd very much agree with, a big part of why we are where we are as a country is the impact of unrestrained, highly manipulative political advertising in media. Shit needs to be curtailed like yesterday, everywhere.

1

Anonymous #4 18h

But also, regarding media bias and advertising, I want to point out some things specifically. We had several laws and regulations on this in the past, still do have some. The big one though, is the fact that tv stations are LITERALLY NOT ALLOWED to censor or refuse sponsored political adverting, due to... FCC regulations, for some reason, based on the first amendment I believe. Another notable one: commercials for consumer products are required to be truthful, per FTC/ FCC rules. You know 1/2

1

Anonymous #4 18h

What ISN'T required to be truthful? Political advertising. That's been challenged on multiple occasions over the decades, and always shot down, on the basis of... freedom of speech. One last one, the now-gone Fairness Doctrine, used to require news stations air publicly-relevant and import issues, in a manner fairly depicting both sides. Was abolished by the courts in 1987, Reagan's years, on the grounds of... again, Freedom of Speech. TLDR, the ideas are being pitched, just not following throug

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Okay look, interesting stuff, not even saying it's wrong, I'll need to look into it more. And I'll be honest here? Some of that I did take for granted a bit, if only because Trump IS a creep and/ or sex-pest on record, and it wouldn't logically seem that far of a leap with the Epstein photos. But that's a bit lazy of me, I know. Also, I generally invest more time into considering and researching candidates and their policies, rather than the open history of people already in office. My bad there

1

Anonymous #4 7h

Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar a lago for flirting with a members teenage daughter. You can find the police report online. It’s just annoying nobody’s cares about the truth of it and just cares that it’s ammunition against their least favorite president. Especially when it’s so easy to debunk

1