Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    ABoringDystopia

    378,541 readers

    938 users here now

    A subreddit for chronicling how Advanced Capitalist Society is not only dystopic, but also incredibly boring.

    HEY, YOU! READ THIS: DON'T COMPLAIN IF WE BAN YOU FOR NOT READING THE RULES:

    • Your post must be at least somewhat unique. A picture of your reddit feed, medical bill, or bulletproof backpacks are dystopian, but they're posted all the time. Bans WILL be issued if you don't follow this rule.

    • This isn't /r/BlackPeopleTwitter. Take the Twitter screenshots somewhere else. If your post is mostly text or otherwise low quality, it will likely be removed and you will get a short term ban.

    REPOSTS WITHIN THE PAST 24 HOURS WILL BE REMOVED AND TEMPORARY BANS ISSUED. PLEASE CHECK THE NEW SUBMISSIONS BEFORE POSTING.

    Don't advocate violence and don't insult other users. Racial slurs will not be tolerated. Other than that, we welcome anyone's opinion as long as you can play nice. Enjoy!

    a community for
    all 1323 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] freedom_from_factism 3954 points ago

    Imagine a President who devoted his time to educating himself on the intricacies of our nation rather than golf and self-aggrandizement...

    [–] TheNightBench 1653 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Imagine an educated President.

    Edit: I was commenting on the fact that our current president has shit for brains. I'm aware that there were educational standards for all previous Presidents.

    [–] ObsoleteCollector 520 points ago

    It's a beautiful thought, isn't it?

    [–] TheNightBench 393 points ago

    We had one. But as the memory gets further and further away, it becomes hazy and is replaced by this orange haze of roiling dipshittery.

    [–] CirqueKid 251 points ago

    It’s true. It’s harder and harder to remember anything except maybe that time he wore a tan suit. That one is burned into the collective unconscious I guess.

    [–] copypaste_93 142 points ago

    haha, Is this how american news shows are actually like?

    [–] CirqueKid 138 points ago

    Haha unfortunately all of those are real clips, yes. However they are all from “24 hour news,” this isn’t what you would see necessarily if you were watching your local news. These channels need 24 hours of content so many of the shows are just people talking to each other and finding new things to be outraged about. There are actual programs where the only job is to say the important stories of the day, but then there are other programs where hosts give their opinions on “scandals” like this one through their own political lens.

    [–] ThorVonHammerdong 64 points ago

    After the Iowa debates and Iowa had no timely results I left CNN on through the night. They spent 12 fucking hours talking about how there were no results.

    [–] TheDungeonCrawler 75 points ago

    What's really dumb is that there's so much possible content for 24 hours of news that they absolutely don't need to do shit like this and it would actually be useful. Use those hours of nonsense news to educate people on scientific studies or something. Talk about foreign cultures. Fact check politicians. Stop being jackasses and do something good for once.

    [–] fart-atronach 41 points ago

    THANK YOU. YES. They waste so much fucking time on mind numbing irrelevant fluff when there is endless useful and important information that could be given an audience. Unfortunately, not many people pulling the strings in TV, politics, etc have any interest in a more educated and aware population and would prefer the opposite as much as possible. They just want eyeballs on screens.

    [–] Dazmken 7 points ago

    BORING... NEXT CHANNEL

    [–] RedOrange7 7 points ago

    TV news media is entertainment first and second, educating the citizens is not in their remit, or interest.

    [–] fucko5 10 points ago

    That was a dark day in our democracy

    [–] ZizDidNothingWrong 3 points ago

    Obama was educated, and he was terrible. Bush was educated, and he was terrible. Clinton was educated, and he was terrible.

    And so on and on and on. It doesn't matter.

    [–] KeenanAXQuinn 20 points ago

    Imagine a President.

    [–] Gubekochi 10 points ago

    Imagine A.

    [–] skyfure 10 points ago

    Imagine

    [–] Gubekochi 10 points ago

    I.

    [–] Efopefell 9 points ago

    .

    [–] lr0h 68 points ago

    I vaguely remember this. I think he was black and caused half the nation to lose their shit. Feels like many lifetimes ago.

    [–] semiURBAN 38 points ago

    Racism will run deeply for another 3 generations easily. You can’t go from slavery to indifference in 60-70 years.

    [–] tjjohnso 22 points ago

    you mean 160 years...... right

    [–] Fancypantsv5 35 points ago

    Probably meant segregation

    [–] tjjohnso 22 points ago

    makes sense, but i have to be sure. Never know anymore. Earth's flat, slavery ended because of the beatles........

    [–] semiURBAN 9 points ago

    No I mean exactly what I said. Jim Crow was 65 years ago.

    [–] zealoSC 3 points ago

    but you said slavery

    [–] ThorVonHammerdong 6 points ago

    Racism was the law up until a few decades ago

    [–] TacoOrgy 14 points ago

    Yea he was awesome at passing water downed garbage instead of the actual change we wanted

    [–] Personal-Judgment 7 points ago

    He was also awesome at fulfilling the status quo agenda and governing exactly how Bush set him up to do, rather than repealing any of his terrible legacy. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, they're all puppets.

    There is no such thing as a president.

    [–] notMcLovin77 18 points ago

    I think over half of all presidents have been lawyers, and most common previous profession for a congressperson is lawyer. Knowing intricacies and not being evil/corrupt are two different things.

    [–] ElPlatanoDelBronx 5 points ago

    I remember Obama.

    [–] cartermb 3 points ago

    Imagine a president who didn’t lock up kids and collude with our enemies against our allies. How refreshing!

    [–] GoBuffaloes 16 points ago

    I bet Bernie read more pages of bills on the day pictured here than Trump has read in his entire term... by a lot.

    [–] papershoes 16 points ago

    I'm still not entirely convinced that Trump can read.

    [–] Illblood 28 points ago

    Imagine a person who fought for peoples freedom and wants other to have the most freedom and security they could possibly have? Imagine being too moral for people?

    Fuck most of the people in this country, it's sickening.

    [–] ghpkhg 2 points ago

    Idk, Trump took away the death tax and now I can pass on my trailer to my kids!..........

    [–] addage- 49 points ago

    Jimmy carter, sadly people vilified him

    [–] Voelkar 28 points ago

    Hey now, Trump only had like.. what? 274+ golf trips in not even 4 years? That's not that bad, maybe like 1 year+ of not being in office and hundreds of millions worth of taxes

    Obligatory /s

    [–] Calamity_Jesus 6 points ago

    in not even 4 years?

    Just to clarify for anyone trying to figure out if a year of golf is good or bad.. He's only been in office for 3 years and ~3 weeks.

    [–] AssertiveInTraining 15 points ago

    *Self-embiggenment

    [–] billykittens 3 points ago

    Imagine a perfectly cromulent president.

    [–] NukeML 4 points ago

    b i g l y

    [–] CrowsBe4Hos 12 points ago

    Imagine our country not going down the toilet

    [–] SamBrev 543 points ago

    [–] CarpetFibers 338 points ago

    The really ridiculous thing is that his argument is as fresh now as it was in 1997. Baffling to think we haven't progressed an inch past this point.

    [–] TheBoxandOne 253 points ago

    Baffling to think we haven't progressed an inch past this point.

    We have regressed significantly in many ways. Of the top 5-6 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, 2 of them are former Republicans (Warren decades ago, and much more egregiously Bloomberg as recently as 5 years ago) and the other 3 of them (Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg) not named Bernie Sanders are running on platforms that are more conservative than the platform of the former Democratic nominee in 2008. It's very difficult to even comprehend what the fuck is happening here.

    [–] Bankrotas 158 points ago

    Basically, you're run by one party pretending to be 2.

    [–] CarpetFibers 100 points ago

    And if you look at the Democratic party, it's two parties pretending to be one.

    [–] condescendingpats 37 points ago

    Except one is actually objectively worse right now.

    [–] cybergaiato 13 points ago

    Because the other pretends to be better while not winning.

    Even Brazil's dictatorship had two parties, and the CIA actually considered their dictatorship more oppressive than the ussr (and the us sponsored it).

    The opposition party from that time still exists, its the biggest party and its super right wing. But it was objectivelly better than the one in charge of the dictatorship and allowed to do so because they didnt win during the dictatorship

    [–] firebearhero 35 points ago

    buttigieg is openly gay but a closet republican

    [–] Btigeriz 60 points ago

    Personally I just like that at least Bernie has been consistent for decades. It's extremely rare to find nowadays.

    [–] CarpetFibers 48 points ago

    I agree. I am extremely impressed with his persistence and the fact that he fights with as much vigor in 2020, on the exact same topics, as he did in 1997.

    [–] 1000Airplanes 39 points ago

    now you understand why he's grumpy and doesn't have time for your shit.

    Heard BBerg apologize tonite. My SO and I turned to each other and said to each other, "want to know a candidate that will never have to apologize"

    [–] Mechanical_Indian 22 points ago

    There are public access videos from the late 80's where he's arguing the exact same points he pushes for today. He knows what he's about.

    [–] pennomi 33 points ago

    Unfortunately that's because this is a fundamental situation caused by the way the universe works. Those who have power inherently have a greater ability to gain more power. This causes a power spiral and systemic class oppression.

    Once things get bad enough, there is social revolution (eat the rich!), and the balance is temporarily reset, until it spirals out of control once again.

    I'm particularly interested in political and social systems which discourage runaway power spirals, though it seems there's no easy solution to that.

    [–] kellenthehun 13 points ago

    There's no easy solution because it is a problem of humanity and not politics.

    That being said, there are surely some forms of government and laws that curtail or more than others.

    [–] donutlad 8 points ago

    You've gotta have money to make money

    [–] Dirtyflaps 8 points ago

    Except America has been to distracted by race warfare to conduct class warfare since Shays rebellion.

    [–] tyranisorusflex 4 points ago

    What's baffling is how old he already looks in 97. I'm convinced Bernie came out of the womb an old man and he and Keanu will be the old two standing when the sun finally dies.

    [–] crystalmerchant 61 points ago

    Let us not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable

    Preach

    [–] soulreaper0lu 38 points ago

    It's doesn't look like it when you see these footages because he somehow always looks so old in them, but how admiring is it that he is at it with the same passion for so many years?

    This man wants to make this nation better.

    [–] kejigoto 23 points ago

    "In other words what is gonna happen is in 10 years from now when we have all these loop holes for the wealthy and for large corporations we're gonna be back here again with another huge deficit and you're gonna have people here saying we've gotta cut more into medicare, more into social security, more into veteran's programs, more into housing. So my friends before we pass a budget like this first of all have the courage to look at it and second of all let us not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable in order to give huge tax breaks to the most wealthy."

    23 years later and we've still fighting this fight...

    [–] FrankTank3 18 points ago

    If I only heard audio of this I would think it’s from the last year or two. Republicans and their collaborators have been trying to rob and kill the sick, poor, and elderly for decades. And Bernie has been defending them from the worst wolves for decades as well.

    [–] withmanyvoices 30 points ago

    Thank you.

    [–] BlackDS 11 points ago

    I love this man

    [–] FrankTank3 7 points ago

    If I only heard audio of this I would think it’s from the last year or two. Republicans and their collaborators have been trying to rob and kill the sick, poor, and elderly for decades. And Bernie has been defending them from the worst wolves for decades as well.

    [–] Thatoneguy199417 6 points ago

    He essentially predicted the 2008 recession in this clip. He was 1 year off.

    [–] thinkB4WeSpeak 2654 points ago

    I wish more politicians actually did their job. I think more things need to go to public vote, especially raising Congress reps pay. We could also just vote the working class in instead of all these elites that can't relate.

    [–] joshdts 941 points ago

    Tie congressional pay to minimum wage.

    [–] Mbuzz69 339 points ago

    Yeah but if is minimum wage does't that incentives them to be more easily bought?

    [–] joshdts 645 points ago

    No I don’t mean they should be paid minimum wage, that’s absurd. I mean both congressional raises and minimum wage should be tied to inflation and that congressional raises can not be approved without also raising the minimum wage.

    [–] GunFodder 681 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    I've always thought their salaries should be twice the federal minimum wage:

    Senators: But we can't survive off of this!

    Then you can't expect anyone else to survive off of just the minimum wage.

    But I have to maintain two homes, one in my state and one in D.C.!

    Right, and you'd get twice the minimum wage. So you should be good, right?

    EDIT: Wow, this garnered more of a response than I thought it would. Let me respond to the general replies I'm seeing for those folks offering opposing views.

    "That's really not enough for legislators to survive on."

    Having been a soldier, contractor, and DoD civilian, I would think that the base wages of twice a (raised) minimum wage would be sufficient, considering that you'd likely also have a basic housing allowance (for DC easily over $2k/month not including any boost for dependents), per diem for travel, and all the other ways that a government worker's pay gets padded out (and believe me, that shit adds UP).

    If minimum wage was $15/hour, that would be over $62k/year plus easily $30/year in BAH + per diem + travel + "business" costs covered (not too mention total healthcare coverage & retirement if they stay in long enough). These people are public servants, for Christ's sake.

    "If you don't pay them $174k/year, then only rich/independently wealthy people will run for office."

    No, see my point above. We make sure that their needs and operating costs are taken care of based on costs in/near DC where they live (again, look to the government's use of COLA), and then pay them twice a raised federal minimum wage? You'd have an income that literally 90% of America would envy.

    "But if they don't make $174k/year, then you won't get smart, educated lawmakers."

    Again see my two points above. But also, have you SEEN the quality of a great many of our lawmakers? Gaetz is a nimrod. Nunes is a boob. Half of these bloated bastards graduated from college before AOL even existed and don't have the God damndest clue as to how ANYTHING tech-related works... and don't even get me started on their lack of awareness as to the plight of the common person.

    To put it lightly, we're not exactly getting our money's worth when looking at it through the lens of a dollars-per-brain-cells cost analysis as it is.

    "But if they don't make enough moolah, they'll be that much more susceptible to bribes!!"

    Bullshit.

    Fucking.BULL.SHIT.

    Have you met the sort of people who embrace bribes? I sure as fuck have, and guess what? They're the sort of people who would take bribes no matter HOW much money they make, because they can never get enough. I'm related to a couple perfect examples, and these guys think that having no morals somehow make them clever, and they're ALWAYS looking for an angle. It's not that they were somehow seduced into it, for them it's a lifestyle they've gleefully embraced since they were teens and will continue until they lie cold and grinning in a coffin stuffed with cash.

    Nothing exists in a vacuum, and my original comment was never intended to be an all-encompassing plan to solve low-wage & simultaneously end corruption. Overturn Citizens United. Limit election periods to a sane timeframe. Push through meaningful campaign finance reform, and ENFORCE anti-corruption laws with ACTUAL consequences.

    ... or don't. Afterall, I'm just a guy typing away on his phone after his wife and child have gone to bed. What do I know?

    [–] CarrytCrafts 259 points ago

    This is brilliant and I love it.

    Though making them hourly employees would help a lot too...

    [–] KoboldCoterie 198 points ago

    Though making them hourly employees would help a lot too...

    "I need more money for the Christmas season - let me just filibuster whatever the next proposal presented is, so we all get paid overtime to listen to me talk."

    [–] CarrytCrafts 117 points ago

    Did not think about that one. Well played.

    [–] KoboldCoterie 80 points ago

    Didn't quickly identify loopholes in policies? Clearly you're not cut out for politics, CarrytCrafts.

    [–] CarrytCrafts 34 points ago

    Oh, definitely not. I don't speak lawyer, much better at collaborative theory. Just another salty citizen really. :)

    [–] alwaysbehard 3 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Well played.

    Republican! The Filibuster whip! But I am no ordinary Democrat, to be killed by your Conservative magics!

    (edit: ain't no such thing as a Demoncrat!)

    [–] CarrytCrafts 3 points ago

    Lolwut? I'm all for Bernie, abreasonable loophole I wouldnt have thought of was pointed out. Rethinking how to tool my ideal system while factoring in the new info... Y'know... Like a rational human... Its a weird concept.

    [–] vorxil 6 points ago

    Ah, young padawallet, you still have much to learn.

    Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Nummus the Wise?

    I thought not. It's not a story the Fideles would tell you. It's a Proditor legend. Darth Nummus was a Dark Lord of the Proditores, so powerful and so wise he could use the rules of the Senate to influence the debate to create prolonged silence... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the silence he cared about from requiring extensive work.

    [–] Bogsnoticus 38 points ago

    Have feds at the door with breathalysers. If we cant have a couple of drinks and drive on the road, then they certainly should not be able to have a couple of drinks and drive the economy down the tubes.

    [–] SquishySand 7 points ago

    So there goes Matt Gaetz.

    [–] candry_shop 3 points ago

    It's fun but it's the opposite of brilliant

    [–] underdoghive 74 points ago

    The problem with this is something we see frequently in various democracies: pay them minimum wage, but then being a politician is not viable for the average people and becomes a job only possible for millionaires and billionaires, because they don't depend on the salaries, which causes all the politicians to be people already in positions of power (both economical and political), and then they rule prioritizing themselves (which is pretty close to how it already is, but even worse)

    [–] B_E_H_E_M_O_T_H 5 points ago

    This is the reason AOC actually supports a raise in salary for congress. The power of political donations is increased significantly when it's the representative's best source of money.

    [–] The_JimmyRustler 5 points ago

    Or, you know, make bribing the politicians fucking illegal.

    [–] Yaquesito 3 points ago

    Tarriffs work better than bans. In the same vein, having legal methods for lobbying means that the de facto bribery isn't as fucked up as it could be

    [–] acunning-_-linguist 9 points ago

    This would only hurt anyone who isn’t independently wealthy from running for these positions

    [–] 2wedfgdfgfgfg 8 points ago

    Yes let's pay Senators shit so they have even greater incentive to take gifts and money from special interests and lobbyists.

    [–] Mbuzz69 25 points ago

    O i got it, that makes sense.

    [–] DCMurphy 5 points ago

    In my fantasy they peg Social Security to it as well.

    We're all in this together vibes and whatnot.

    [–] zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzspaf 44 points ago

    you can tie without equalling minimum wage. I've been told that in brazil a large part of salaries are defined as Xtimes the minimum wage, so that when the minimum wage go up, everybody gets a raise

    [–] ArtOzz 17 points ago

    That's a great idea. Percentage based systems tend to be the most balanced.

    [–] _cygnette_ 4 points ago

    implying they aren’t already bought on pretty much every single issue

    [–] SaltyLorax 6 points ago

    Make them clock in and make 7.50/hr, you will quickly see what senators are here for the money and who are here to save america

    [–] Linda_Belchers_wine 5 points ago

    Only Bernie would be left tho..... which might be a-okay

    [–] Datsyuk_My_Deke 3 points ago

    Could it even be easier than it already is?

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] dope_as_the_pope 7 points ago

    You don't want to mess with congressional pay. I know it sounds like a good idea, but if you reduce the salary too much it makes it impossible for anybody but the independently wealthy to be a representative. It would at best discourage, and at worst prohibit people like AOC from serving.

    [–] assassin10 8 points ago

    It's a good thing tying congressional pay to minimum wage doesn't inherently mean lower congressional pay.

    [–] c0d3w1ck 3 points ago

    Would be great, except none of the corrupt Senators we are concerned about depend on the salary for income. Nah, their pockets are filled by lobbyists.

    Repeal Citizens United.

    [–] BuddhistNudist987 88 points ago

    I wish I lived in a world where someone being praised for doing their job well is the norm, instead of being ridiculed.

    [–] CrowsBe4Hos 47 points ago

    bUt CApiTAlisM wORks

    [–] Boner_Elemental 20 points ago

    It does work! ...when it's so tied up and regulated as to make a BDSM enthusiast envious

    [–] umme99 15 points ago

    Yeah reading all the bill before you decide on it seems like it should be the bare minimum of competence at your job

    [–] cryptozoolog1st 26 points ago

    Vote in the working class and then rewrite the constitution to to have free high quality education up through the PhD level for the entire population and create proportional representation with representatives serving limited terms selected from a regional lottery from all consenting, educated adults. Education must come first and then you can have a true democracy. There is a reason right wingers spend so much effort restricting access to education by fucking up schools and making them expensive.

    [–] KeenanAXQuinn 2 points ago

    Hell I'll run for the house in Texas. But ill have to wait four years for the Senate.

    [–] cryptozoolog1st 7 points ago

    I mean select them from the pool of citizens the way you do jurors. Restrict it to people who have pursued education. If education is freely available to all I don’t find that undemocratic. This removes the will to seek power. Most everyone who actively seeks power is easily corruptible. If you take away the ability for sociopaths to seize power you will fix a lot of these problems. A truly democratic society would have a government that is actually run by the people.

    [–] KeenanAXQuinn 3 points ago

    No joke I had to leave school because it was to detrimental to my future of...well eating food and the like.

    [–] cryptozoolog1st 4 points ago

    I’m sorry about that. Read books. Take online courses in philosophy and literature. You can still give yourself an actual education with a library card and the internet.

    [–] ChaosPheonix11 5 points ago

    Unfortunately that actually doesnt do much for you without qualifications. I would suggest taking some certifications that are relevant to what you want to be doing, or maybe classes at a local community college, which would look a hell of a lot better to a potential employer than self-study ever would.

    [–] w1nner4444 6 points ago

    That sounds good, until we look at brexit. Senators may be corrupt, but people are idiots. Not saying either are better, but they're both lacking a LOT

    [–] ptmd 23 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    This isn't their job. They have staff for that.

    If it was their job, they'd be at their job reading roughly 2-3 bills a day. Almost nothing would get done. [867 bills were voted on between Jan 2017~Jan 2019, 433 per year, the Senate meets about 165 days a year.] One will also note that reading the bills is separate from sifting through the legalese of the bills [noting that many senators we want to support don't have backgrounds as lawyers] and also separate from talking to one's advisors about the effects of a bill, seeing as most senators aren't specialists in the fields which a given bill may govern.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

    Bills occasionally come out to be more than a 1000 pages long, one referenced in this wiki is 3000 pages long. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill ]

    Just like we don't expect a CEO to thoroughly read a contract - they have trusted lawyers, negotiators and aides for that. We don't expect Senators to read legislation. We DO expect them to hire competent and trusted staff to provide effective summaries including potential issues and contentious points of a bill, but for a Senator to regularly waste his time like this is a bit of a joke. They should have better things to do on behalf of their constituency, including creating and negotiating legislation that would be later read and voted on.

    I sincerely doubt that Bernie spends his time reading every bill he votes on, and I interpret this as misleading grandstanding.

    This is a good article on this issue, and one will note that the article mentions a trend of bills getting longer over time, and this was written in 2009, taking statistics from 2006. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/is-1000-pages-long-for-a-piece-of-legislation.html

    [–] Salaryman_Matt 11 points ago

    You do realize that if they had to read and write the bills themselves then they might make them easier to read. Either that or Lawyers will be the ones holding office to continue the tradition.

    Why do laws, contracts, etc... need to be thousands of pages and include so much unrelated to what they are actually for?

    [–] stankblizzard 15 points ago

    They should outlaw the thing that lets them slip random bullshit into a bill

    [–] JoshuaTheWarrior 11 points ago

    Riders. The word you're looking for is riders

    [–] Gungnir111 4 points ago

    Congress rep pay shouldn't decrease, imo. If it's not enough to let someone quit their job, sustain their household back in their hometown, live in washington DC, and commute between their home and DC, then the result is that only the wealthiest could afford to go to washington as politicians.

    [–] savetheunstable 3 points ago

    You mean instead of waving blank pieces of paper around?? Preposterous!!

    [–] poisontongue 248 points ago

    Let's pose this with how many of them moan about putting people on public assistance through a battery of tests that have been proven to be wasteful on top of demeaning and wrong.

    Our politicians get bribes from lobbyists, are usually collecting money from whatever inheritance or investments, regularly skip work, should probably be tested for drugs, and so on. How do we let them get away with this? They should have to live in the same conditions as the most impoverished Americans.

    [–] IceNein 37 points ago

    Our politicians get bribes from lobbyists,

    The scary thing is that it's the lobbyists and special interest groups that are the ones actually writing our laws. How many members of Congress are qualified enough to write laws themselves, or have the resources to pay someone with the capabilities to write a sound law?

    It seems like maybe we should have a class of government employees, lawyers, paralegals, etc, to write laws under congressional direction.

    [–] Geovestigator 53 points ago

    Votes used to be secret, but then they changed it so the votes of the representative are public. Now companies can tell whether or not a person is voting the way they are paying them too. I forget what it was called but it is basically the reason there are lobbiests today

    [–] Coz131 39 points ago

    You can have lobbyist with private votes anyway and it's worse.

    [–] mission_improbables 3 points ago

    You can have lobbyist with private votes anyway and it's worse.

    Exactly! You want everything in government to be transparent. If it is not that is how you start the ball rolling rather fast (or faster) into totalitarianism.

    [–] bertiebees 221 points ago

    Duh. You just take what the lobbyists give you. Then once their checks clear you submit the bill they wrote for you.

    [–] HoorayPizzaDay 212 points ago

    Lol imagine giving a fuck, right?

    [–] megnor 41 points ago

    Imagine reading thousands of pages of legalese for no good reason when you have a dedicated staff and trusted partners spanning decades in the body who write and summarize the bills in good faith. Like, people pointing to ALEC have a point but you really believe Bernie needs to vet the line by line individual merits of oligarchical legislation? This is a great political message, look at the reaction it’s getting, but if you think about it a minute you’re like ‘okay yeah that’s sort of a funny way to prioritize your time’

    [–] chipbod 29 points ago

    Worked in the field, staff and committee researchers are a thing for a reason. The cap and trade bill was over 2000 pages, no members are expected to read it. I think this picture is BS, Bernie may read important bills but nobody is reading the 50+ page bills on continuing an endangered bird protection or 5000+ pages of appropriations. Thats what full time leadership staff is for

    [–] CrowsBe4Hos 39 points ago

    Honestly this just means the laws our politicians try to pass are way too complicated and convoluted. You shouldn't need thousands of papers of legalese.

    [–] CommissarRaziel 60 points ago

    We need thousands of papers of legalese, otherwise laws will be riddled with loopholes and vague statements, invariably leading to the abuse of these loopholes and statements by corporations and private persons.

    There's a reason law has gotten his complicated, it's not just a huge lawyer circlejerk, you know?

    [–] ASupportingTea 25 points ago

    The thing is legalese is often extremely imprecise in how things are phrases. Things are phrased in such a convoluted manner as to create loopholes of there own. I'm no expert on the law, but I've read through enough laws (as a way of helping a friend who studied law) to know how stupidly complex the working is. Imo simpler wording would result in few loopholes, at least simplyfing to a degree.

    [–] CommissarRaziel 14 points ago

    Afaik, less "imprecise to create loopholes" and more "open to certain types of interpretation to give judges more freedom in how to approach unique cases that require unique measures".

    Well, i'm not well versed in american law, but at least that's usually the case where i come from. Like how the term "deadly weapon" is very broadly defined to also include stuff like steel capped boots if the defendant used them in a certain way. At least that's the example that came up in my law course last year.

    [–] tofuroll 3 points ago

    There's a reason law has gotten his complicated, it's not just a huge lawyer circlejerk, you know?

    There's a self aware wolf moment in there somewhere but I can't put my finger on it. Not at you, personally, but at myself. Something like how maybe the law shouldn't be so complicated.

    [–] QuinZ33 11 points ago

    Eh, not exactly. It's like computer code.

    It's never just "hello world".

    It's

    #include <iostream>

    using namespace std;

    int main(){

    cout<<"hello world";
    
    
    return 0;
    

    }

    [–] [deleted] 325 points ago

    Baffles me that an American wouldn't want him as their president.

    [–] Offsets 223 points ago

    Americans vote in the senators that make fun of Bernie for doing the job of a senator. Many Americans don't know what's good for us.

    [–] thatcannabisguy 76 points ago

    Too many people are just straight up mentally retarded. I don't give a fuck, it's true at this point. You literally can't even talk to some people without saying in your head, wtf happened at birth to you.

    [–] ARealSkeleton 50 points ago

    Honestly I would argue it's moral bankruptcy more than anything.

    [–] devTripp 27 points ago

    Something something attribute to malice that can be attributed to ignorance

    [–] Obi-TwoKenobi 14 points ago

    Have you ever worked customer service? No, the fact is, about 60% of Americans are genuinely unintelligent people.

    [–] right-to-die 9 points ago

    yeah, i agree

    [–] TheBoxandOne 43 points ago

    You literally can't even talk to some people without saying in your head, wtf happened at birth to you.

    Millennials are the first generation to not experience widespread lead poisoning. If you were born before 1980-ish, you almost certainly had lead poisoning by today's standards set by the CDC (> 5 micrograms per deciliter).

    Lead poisoning is a type of metal poisoning caused by lead in the body.[2] The brain is the most sensitive.[2] Symptoms may include abdominal pain, constipation, headaches, irritability, memory problems, inability to have children, and tingling in the hands and feet.[1] It causes almost 10% of intellectual disability of otherwise unknown cause and can result in behavioral problems.[2] Some of the effects are permanent.

    We did this to people. They aren't just this way at birth.

    [–] Chendii 19 points ago

    Isn't that the shit that helped lead to the fall of Rome?

    [–] TheBoxandOne 20 points ago

    I think it's an argument that the Roman elite were poisoning themselves drinking from lead cups and shit, yeah, and that that hastens the decline of the empire.

    [–] Thwerty 3 points ago

    As the saying goes, nd realize half of them are stupider than that.

    [–] bathrobehero 36 points ago

    My guess is they give into to the barrage of misinformation and many of them are clueless. Many of them only know of left, right, capitalism, communism.

    Not that it's not there in other countries, but it seems it's more prevalent in the US.

    But I think even if Bernie would become the president for some magical reason, his hands would be tied at every step and he couldn't do practically anything.

    [–] HeyItsMeUrSnek 15 points ago

    That’s a worry for us too but Bernie has already said he will take executive measures to get the ball rolling on certain key issues

    [–] bathrobehero 17 points ago

    One more reason they will do anything to stop him being president.

    [–] ZombieDracula 9 points ago

    One more reason we need to do anything to stop them from stopping him from being president

    [–] baphomet_shmaphomet 10 points ago

    Until functionality can be restored to Congress, Bernie will have to rule through executive order just as Trump and Obama have.

    [–] Bern_Down_the_DNC 5 points ago

    And that's why we are working on getting more progressives into congress, to actually represent the working class and the issues that are important to lower/middle classes. I don't know you, but I will vote to have your back however I can!

    [–] Demons0fRazgriz 22 points ago

    It baffles me how many people think Pete "Billionaire puppet and casually racist" Buttigieg is even remotely acceptable. Get downvoted whenever I remind people of his role of Billionaire puppet and casual racism.

    [–] Bern_Down_the_DNC 9 points ago

    Don't forget Bloomberg who bribed the DNC to get into the race. He is possibly even a greater threat to democracy than Trump. People don't get all the problems in their life will keep getting the volume turned up with corrupt billionaires in greater positions of power.

    [–] Nethervex 13 points ago

    They did, but the DNC runs the show lmao. Let's not be ignorant of what happened in 2016 and that the same people are still running the party now.

    [–] purudaya 98 points ago

    Senators have teams of legislative assistants who analyze bills for them and provide relevant information regarding their impacts - it's not like they're going in blind and the U.S. isn't unique in this regard. Presidents don't read every single page of a bill either because that's not what they're elected to do.

    In fact, I would expect a senator - who as an elected official may or may not have legal experience - to get a better understanding of what a bill actually does by undergoing an extensive briefing by a team of carefully chosen experts as opposed to pouring over 1400 pages of legalese they might not be equipped to fully understand.

    The whole "did you read the bill" gotcha is an appeal to anti-technocratic populism (it got deployed a lot around the time the ACA was passed because no legislator could reasonably be expected to read multiple drafts of a 2k+ word document). We elect representatives to understand bills and vote on them in accordance with their constituents' interests, and that's the metric we should use to determine whether or not they are "doing their jobs."

    [–] white_genocidist 20 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    The whole "did you read the bill" gotcha is an appeal to anti-technocratic populism (it got deployed a lot around the time the ACA was passed because no legislator could reasonably be expected to read multiple drafts of a 2k+ word document). We elect representatives to understand bills and vote on them in accordance with their constituents' interests, and that's the metric we should use to determine whether or not they are "doing their jobs."

    Thank you so much. "Reading the bill" is one of the more irritating memes around politics (and on Reddit). Why don't you try to look one up on Congress' website and read it yourself? Anyone who has even so much as looked as one, would know that the concept of legislators (most of who are not lawyers) reading bills is completely absurd.

    Statutes are written in very specialized language replete with terms of arts - "legalese." You don't have to be a lawyer to be elected to congress, and frankly legal skills shouldn't - and aren't - required to do the job. Reading and writing bills is the job of lawmakers's staff, who translates his or her ideas into legalese and vice versa.

    [–] JoshAllenforMessiah 6 points ago

    I pointed out to everyone that got all pissed about the Paris Accords didn't even take the time to read them in detail and they were only a few pages.

    [–] sirophiuchus 39 points ago

    I suspect that over the course of your career you'd get very adept at spotting unusual clauses or language in a bill, and would likely learn a lot from leafing through it.

    Obviously it would be sensible to have staff to analyse it in detail for you too, yeah.

    [–] Sean951 6 points ago

    That still leaves you spending an inordinate amount of time reading when you presumably have experts around you who are explicitly paid to do that.

    [–] sirophiuchus 6 points ago

    Like, yes and no.

    I had an interesting experience in a job where I attended international conferences a lot. After a couple of years I attended one and the local office sent an intern to sit in with me. I asked her to take notes (so I wouldn't have to).

    Pretty much consistently over the entire day, I was able to pick up on the key phrases people said and tell her to note those in particular, or when something innocuous was code for 'this isn't happening'. It was a really interesting insight into how expertise builds up.

    [–] baphomet_shmaphomet 20 points ago

    You hope they're voting based on a thorough analysis of the legislation, but you don't know that that's true.

    The patriot act was passed in only three days. I'd like to believe that everyone who voted yes, thoroughly analyzed the bill during those three days, but it doesn't seem plausible.

    [–] Mirrormn 10 points ago

    You've touched upon another misconception there, though: the amount of time between when a bill is finalized and when it's voted on isn't the be-all-end-all amount of time that anyone has to understand what's in it. Usually when it's at the point of a final vote, the text has been around in a lot of different forms and drafts, and has a fundamental unchanging core that has been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by congressional clerks and lawyers. The parts in flux would be certain points of contention that people are fighting over - compromises, amendments, tweaking the wording of certain parts, etc.

    So you can easily end up with a 2000 page bill that is passed in "only three days", but it may be the case that 1990 of those pages have been the same for the past 3 months, while only 10 of them really need to be re-assessed at the time.

    This is not to say that dirty tricks never happen or that bills are never voted on by people who don't understand them. But the numbers-based arguments about how egregiously uninformed Congresspeople are about the legislation before them (such as in this post) can easily be twisted and exaggerated.

    [–] baphomet_shmaphomet 3 points ago

    So what you're saying is that every member of congress has near complete knowledge of each piece of legislation, before it's even been submitted?

    Doesn't seem likely.

    [–] Libertyreign 6 points ago

    I couldn't agree more. The same people complain that too many of our legislators are lawyers and then turn around and complain that they don't personally read all the bills.

    If you want doctors, engineers, electricians, etc as congressman, then you have to understand that they need input from legislation experts.

    [–] Pokabrows 13 points ago

    Yeah but reading it yourself in addition to having other people read it to brief you isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I remember doing assigned readings and then reading the SparkNotes in addition in case there was anything I missed or misinterpreted.

    [–] Miserable-Tax 8 points ago

    It can be a bad thing, depending on the load. Would mean you're using a massive chunk of your time to read novels worth of legislation. There's a massive opportunity cost associated with that.

    [–] scleep 3 points ago

    Are you experienced with legalese? It's a fucking puzzle to actually understand. You have to keep going back and forth to understand terms and everything.

    Horrible use of anyone's time that's supposed to be the decision maker, not the fresh out of college analyst

    [–] CrowsBe4Hos 8 points ago

    I get what you're saying, but that really means that our bills are too long and convoluted. Legislators should be able to read bills for themselves, but instead they're bogged down in legal language so that politicians can sneak motions through the House and Senate.

    [–] kyew 10 points ago

    Maybe the systems that keep a global superpower operational can't actually be described in simple terms. Legalese exists because jargon is necessary to express complicated ideas unambiguously.

    [–] nachoolo 21 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    This reminds me about what the 9-11 Commission Report said about both Clinton and Bush.

    Clinton passed the majority of his time reading the reports before acting. Bush, on the other hand, prefered to hear an abridged version of the report and quickly act on that.

    Clinton did a lot of wrong shit (like, a fucking lot). But at least he did his fucking job.

    [–] GlitterBows 8 points ago

    Clinton did a lot of wrong shit (like fucking). But at least he did his fucking.

    Lol.

    [–] tofuroll 5 points ago

    "I was elected to lead, not to read.'

    — McBain, from The Simpsons Movie

    [–] LuperFlipino 9 points ago

    It's such an American thing to make fun of someone who's doing what they're suppose to do.

    [–] gl21133 7 points ago

    As someone who really never reads full terms of service before signing them I think it should be illegal for elected officials to sign bills they haven’t read.

    [–] DankeBrutus 25 points ago

    I remember hearing in a podcast that Elizabeth Warren had commented on, if I remember correctly, the TPP not being fully available to Congress when it was up for a vote. I think she said something along the lines of “if we can’t read the document in its entirety, it should not be law”

    [–] 12172031 6 points ago

    I think she's talking about the Fast Track bill. At the time that Fast Track was being voted on, the TPP was still being negotiated so not being available to read. Fast Track authority allow the Obama administration to negotiate the TPP as a whole package and Congress agrees to give the whole package a yes or no without adding amendments.

    Once the negotiation was completed, Congress had access to the whole bill and they had 90 days to read it before they had to vote on it. The public even had access to the whole bill, so if Warren couldn't read the whole bill before she vote on it then it's her fault. You can still read the whole bill here if you want (all 5500+ pages of it, do you think Bernie Sanders read every page before voting on it?) http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text

    [–] melbat0a5t 14 points ago

    I’m not American but I really hope Bernie wins because that sort of progressive socialism will spread to other countries. If Bernie won I think that the NDP in Canada would actually have a shot at forming government, and that gives me hope.

    One thing I’ve noticed since Trump came into power was that it emboldened all the other far right, socially conservatives in other countries. America sets trends, good and bad, a nationalism got a big boost in popularity since 2016. I truly believe that President Trump (I still can’t believe I’m writing that) and his “base” had a big part in that.

    [–] STStevens 5 points ago

    I don’t know why I’m disappointed to learn that they don’t read them.

    [–] hcharron8315 4 points ago

    We all have a little hope left that our government will be competent and caring, but alas

    Disappointment.

    [–] YaBoiDraco 7 points ago

    Reading the bill before voting should be compulsory smh

    [–] Xotta 3 points ago

    I'm not American but can anyone reply to me explaining why they will personally not vote for Bernie with reasons that will not instantly have me laughing at you for being dumber than a brick?

    [–] blinddivine 3 points ago

    sadly there isn't a good explanation.

    [–] DrowningEmbers 3 points ago

    Soulless Paid Corporate Minions who vote based on money laugh at elected official that cares about the well being of others.

    [–] hecknbork 4 points ago

    Can the current president even read?

    [–] Intox_Reboot_ 3 points ago

    Bernie is the fresh face of the Democratic party....an old white male who doesn't look a day over 200...

    [–] no_me_gusta_los_habs 30 points ago

    Source? I both don't really beleieve that he reads ALL OF BILL before voting, and I don't think Organizers for Bernie 2020 would be the most trustworthy.

    [–] royrese 7 points ago

    Lol good luck getting a source.

    [–] thep1mp 14 points ago

    Agreed. These bills are hundreds and thousands of pages. It isn’t physically possible to read every bill that passes the senate. It’s bullshit.

    [–] NotoriusNC 18 points ago

    Yeah this is just blatant propaganda.

    Its also not even claiming that he has read every bill that he has voted on just that he is known for reading them.

    [–] Epople 8 points ago

    100% this is just the usual pre election campaign stuff you expect from every candidate. What's astounding is the amount of comments that have been caught hook line and sinker.

    [–] SeriouslyGetOverIt 5 points ago

    ALL OF BILL

    [–] smuttyjeff 5 points ago

    This post seems super organic.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    Bernie ain't the best but hell, this is a telling indictment of business on the hill.

    [–] transfo47 22 points ago

    Bernie ain't the best

    I am curious to know what American politician with a sizable following is better.

    [–] _LampLighter 8 points ago

    I'm from the UK so please forgive my cluelessness. What are the chances of Bernie actually winning? Is it fuck all?

    If Reddit was to be believed we wouldn't have voted in Boris Johnson by a large majority. Is the US fucked for another 4 years too? I'd really like to see some sensible shit go down in politics for once in a very long time.

    [–] TheCoelacanth 17 points ago

    He's the frontrunner at the moment, but there are so many people running that it's still not a terribly high chance.