|
| ▲ | rdmuser 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is a good argument for barring anyone from being in a position of power like that who is too old to be around for the second half of FAFO. He has nothing to lose but the american people and their global neighbors very much do. |
| |
| ▲ | tocs3 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I sometime think we should have two votes for politicians one to get in office and one for how much jail time to serve when they leave (or maybe a bonus). This is more of a joke, but it would be nice to see public servants held accountable to their constituents (and not just the well connected// corporate) for actions while in office. |
|
|
| ▲ | ch_sm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yes. that‘s the first half of the cause (the other being that he‘s a shameless scammer). |
|
| ▲ | eth0up 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If we were to focus on principle over scale, could we not name many others involved in similar practices, from each 'side' and in between the shitstick? And should we not do so? In a way, it seems somewhat signaling that the precedent was long set, and unspoken rules always effectively 'allowed' it, so here I am, just being more candid about it than stale O..ld Windows have previously encouraged. |
| |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Let's not focus on principle over scale, particularly because scotus declared the rules are completely different for the executive. Others engaged in similar practices do get named. They don't need to be named here. |
|
