LOL, so now a few million is nothing? It's certainly not middle class, which you just said Pelosi and her husband should be. You can't even stick to the principles you claim to have. This is why you are joke and deserved to called out.
So it's bad faith to point out that Bernie Sanders lives better off than probably most Americans? So a few million counts as middle class?
This is a weak retort even for you. If you think that's what I have been saying all this time, I have given you much more intellectual credit than necessary. Maybe you are closer to Boeberts and Gaetz than I thought.
I think we can have a rational debate on what the upper limit of lifestyle a lawmaker should have and amassing a couple mill from like 40+ years of work which is typically what a career engineer, architect etc have by the time they retire through their 401k. And being a public figure, it's easier for him to make money from doing things like selling books because of exposure. That really.idnt corruption in my eyes. Though I would prefer if polticians do that stuff after they leave office.
Just going to state that the debate we are having regarding Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders is more debate than I've seen many of those who like to accuse "the Left" on this board of being in lockstep than I've seen them have regarding Republicans. I've made this observation before that many of the self declared right leaning posters will go to great lengths about how much they hate Trump, didn't vote for him and don't want to defend him yet will still do so. Will still defend the Republican party even while it implodes because they can't give any ground to the other side.
Sure I don't think Sanders is corrupt but at the same time why should we limit how much money he can make. I have no problem with him making millions. I have no problem with Pelosi making millions. As an architect I hope I make millions. I'm not quite there yet but I'm working on it. I'm going to bring out my Objectivist here but the desire to be more successful, to have more money can be a strong motivator for people to do great things. I think it's not just unrealistic but possibly dangerous to just expect those who aspire to political leadership to somehow not also want money, fame, and power. Sanders in your words is comfortable but he also has fame and under a Democratic Senate has power. I don't begrudge him that. You seem to feel that he has to limit himself. Would you think less of him if he did make $100 million and owned five houses?
Why does a lawmaker have to have a limit on their lifestyle? Thanks for making plain how extremist you what does lifestyle have to do with governance or lawmaking. And what should be the cutoff anyway because it seems you are comfortable with a politician being a multimillionaire, or is it you are comfortable with Bernie being a multimillionaire? That eerily seems like you have a set of rules for one politician but another for Bernie, kind of like what Republicans have for Trump. And you keep asking me why I associate you with the Trump extremist thanks for illustrating it perfectly.
WTF? You are not even trying to make sense anymore, your arguments are the very definition of naive and unrealistic.
The cuttof should be "could this person amass this amount of money from a high salaried position". 100 mill exceeds that cutt off. So reasonable judgement is the cutt off.
Easiest fix for this is for McCarthy to push through a vote to say that the plurality winner gets to be speaker and dare the crazies to keep voting for someone else (and get Jeffries elected) or get in line and vote for McCarthy. Dems ultimately have to agree on plurality voting but that's his best path right now. These people don't want to stop the hostage negotiations so McCarthy has to change the rules to end this. And before he pushes the plurality vote change, he can go to the crazies and say that he's about to change the rules so this is the last chance for a negotiated deal using the current voting rules. Otherwise, plurality voting means no rules changes or concessions. But McCarthy is a moron so they likely have no plan right now. They're just groveling for votes to adjourn at this point.
Not rude at all but how is it naive and unrealistic? Can you point to a historical example where a government did function for a long time without greedy and or powerful lawmakers?
I'm just saying my ideas are considered naive but wouldn't believing that aspiring for great wealth provides positive motivations in the profession of law making?
He doesn't need to push for that rule change. Simply having just a few Reps vote Present will lead to that.
You framed the quest to find examples in a way where this issue being a gradient as a claim makes it impossible for me to answer that besides conceding "every political system in history has corruption" I just believe the wealth Pelosi accumulated is enough thanks and support she needs where I find it cringe when people stan for her
Wait what? Do you think Bernie made those millions from his salary as a legislator? What's reasonable about that a person can't make money besides their salary? Bernie does not make your "reasonable" cutt off either, which undercuts your entire argument.
Think of of something reasonable. You know that I know there is a reasonable threshold and this line of questioning seems kinda in bad faith. Why? because we both know that whatever that threshold is, 9 figures FAR exceeds it.
So you can't provide an actual example yet are arguing that I am being naive and unrealistic when you're saying it's impossible for you to use a real world example to bolster your argument. That's fine. You can feel that way. I don't think it's as big of a problem nor do I think great wealth is in itself an inherent problem or one that needs to be addressed. It matters how she came to that and I think there is a fair argument she did so by unethical means. Just saying we should limit the wealth of politicians for the sake of limiting their wealth I don't think will be realistic or good for reasons already stated.
