timmy_dean_sausage

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Potentially losing your job would be part of the risk/sacrifice a potential candidate would have to accept. Yes, it would be difficult for someone living paycheck to paycheck to do this. Ideally, election reform like this would go hand in hand with economic reform that leads us to a society in which much less people are living paycheck to paycheck. This could happen easily if we start electing real people instead of rich people only.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

One option is to publicly fund candidates equally. In such a system someone could apply to run for a position, the position would require a specified amount of people to nominate that person, if that person is nominated they get a grant that covers their campaign costs. The amount wouldn't be excessive so campaigns would look very different than they do now in places like the US.

Another option is to limit campaign donations from any individual to $100 total. This would force politicians to put effort into building a grassroots campaign while keeping big moneyed interests out of the process.

When politicians get into a position of power, they should be paid enough that they're firmly in the upper middle class, so they're comfortable and less likely to accept bribes, and they should not be given any opportunity to accept bribes or profit off of their position in any way.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Did you read their entire comment?

The government income and pension should be enough to live on so that these issues can be avoided.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Exactly. Grift for another election cycle while you further beta-test defrauding the elections, count on dem's to not be able to close whatever loopholes you find, swoop in with a winning election theft strategy with Ivanka in tow as cover for Trump Sr's advanced age and hail her as a true (conservative!) woman that can handle the presidency (unlike the bad brown skank monster), then close the elections permanently with Trump Jr becoming VP when Sr finally passes. Mass Civil unrest occurs and Ivanka steps down to return leadership to a strong man that can truly lead with an iron fist through the ensuing Civil War in true fascist fashion.

Of course, they would never get away with all of that (because average Americans ARE good people, and there are plenty of good people fighting this possible future), but IMHO this is probably close to their best wet dreams.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

We know he needs the immunity, but I'm not sure he knows that. He's dodged so many felonies at this point, he likely thinks he's untouchable even if he loses. This is just speculation though, of course, based on my experience with my own maga family member's tendencies to hand-wave away logic that makes them uncomfortable, especially when the topic is something that seriously affects them. You make some good points though. I think you're right, but as I said, this is my loose crackpot theory xD

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

My crackpot theory is that he doesn't actually want to win. I think he's making so much money campaigning that he realized he could milk a couple more election cycles until the dummies get tired of him.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It seemed like you were referring to overall voting trends. I was referring specifically to the vote suppression of city dwellers due to the extreme gerrymandering that has historically happened in Texas. Glad we agree though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

That's just the loose buttholes of all the alt right cum dumbsters singing their saviors personal anthem

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The people of Houston are. The people of the surrounding rural areas, who have actual voting power, are not.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They're saying "good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won't be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)". While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh, gotcha. That's an interesting thought, but I would still be worried about the possibility of bullets and molotovs flying around my venue and people dying, when all of that is avoidable by just saying no to having the event in the first place.

People are fantasizing about sticking it to the fascists (which, believe me, I'm 1000% for), but this just isn't the way to do it, IMHO.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

view more: next ›