• Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago
    1. Yes please.

    2. The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.

    3. You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.

      • Ranked Choice voting, fixed that for ya.
    4. This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.

    5. Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I’m not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.

    6. I hate that this has to be listed as well. 😮‍💨

    • tea@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago
      1. fair point, agreed. I typically like things that move with changing times so the same logic works in 100, 200 years. Ages are more static than dollar amounts. Not tying the gas tax or minimum wage to inflation or cost of living has put us in a major bind, which is what I was thinking about.

      2. Let them play that game (and hopefully get caught). Better than the in-the-open shit they do now. At least try

      3. I’d rather it not specify so we can play around changing it with laws instead of having it hard coded in the constitution. There are ones that I like even more than straight ranked choice. Just get rid of the EC, though maybe just dictating ranked choice would be the right move.