He means in politics you don't need to bet on the winning horse, you can just bribe him after he wins. Or bet on both.

Sure but like… he’s just some fucking guy on a tech comment thread (as are we all). You don’t think the professional bribe guys know a thing or two about doing bribes? Nah. The people who won wouldn’t take their money. It had to be those losers.

This is not a story about people being bad at bribing, it’s a story about The people rejecting candidates who were open to taking those bribes. Not necessarily because they took crypto money, more because shit policy positions usually come in sets, and we’re not into it.

▲

daft_pink an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I mean that receiving election funding generally just correlates with winning and it doesn’t cause winning.

Everyone wants to write checks to the winner, because they think they will win. But writing checks to some random candidate doesn’t result in them suddenly winning.

▲

blitzar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The people rejecting candidates who were open to taking those bribes

The people voted for candidates who were openly taking bribes from other people.

> You don’t think the professional bribe guys know a thing or two about doing bribes?

Crypto bros know better and wont hire the professionals

▲

itsdesmond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand the frustration but you realize how brazen the US is about bribes right? It's not a bribe unless you say "I'm giving you this money as a bribe." That's the legal standard SCOTUS has declared.

	▲	itsdesmond 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, for sure. That’s why I vote for candidates that refuse PAC money from crypto and otherwise. This goof is lazily and without evidence asserting that there exists no good option. I dunno if they wanna just be smug or if they’re actively trying to dissuade participation, but I don’t need it either way.