75
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by vettnerk@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 69 points 1 year ago

I'm not at all qualified to be in charge of anything.

[-] GammaGames@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago

You’ve got my vote!

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Thank god, finally someone to vote for with a good head on their shoulders.

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

This guy for president 2024!

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago

I'm an ex-Mormon and Satanist, I'm largely a socialist, I am very pro-gun and would support revocation of the NFA of 1934, and also pro LGBTQ+, feminist, pro-abortion, in favor of raising top marginal tax rates to 95%, instituting wealth taxes on total assets owned or controlled in excess of $100M (and total seizure if convicted of trying to conceal the ownership), support revoking corporate personhood through constitutional amendment, I'm in favor if widespread public transit, and favor taxing oil companies out of existence to pay for it, support Ukraine without reservation, blah blah blah.

I am unelectable for any political party in the US.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago

Depending on how your gun policies are, I might be able to swallow that in exchange for everything else

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I'm generally in favor of the fewest possible restrictions; I'd rather change the cultural attitude and situations that lead to violence in the first place than restrict the tools that people use. Cramming tons of poor people with no hope for a better future into a very small area, for instance; that's a pretty solid predictor of bad outcomes.

First, I think that any costs associated with laws on gun ownership should be covered by income and wealth taxes. (I also think that state and national parks should be funded the same way; I oppose fee-based gov't services. It's it's a public good that the gov't should be performing, then it should be fully funded.)

I would absolutely favor mandatory training for people that wanted to own firearms, but I'd also make sure that training was on-demand, easily accessed, and paid for by income taxes and not fees. (So, like, Cook County, IL couldn't have only one class every month that meets 30 miles east of O'Hare at 3:30am on Tuesday morning, with a maximum of five spots open, all to make sure that very, very few people can legally own firearms.) I do generally think that people should know under what circumstances they can legally use lethal force, and I'd support free--as above--classes for anyone that wanted a carry permit. Carry permits should be free to people that have attended the classes. I support free universal background checks on all firearm transfers. I'd have to consult with how to make background checks on private transfers work, because I wouldn't want Joe Schmoe holding onto a 4473 that I filled out--too much personal information--but I also don't want the gov't having a database of all private transfers that would become a de facto registry.

I'm generally in favor of removing the rights from someone once they have been convicted of a violent offense, but not usually otherwise. (I think that 'violent offense' would need to be carefully defined so that states couldn't e.g. redefine speeding as a violent offense.) I think red flag laws might be a good idea--people planning acts of mass murder usually 'leak' information in the days or weeks prior--but the way they're currently implemented is not good at all, and it can take months to get your rights back.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago

If we're going to have guns, then I support mandatory training. If you can't pass a safety test, you shouldn't have a gun.

I think there's an ideological gap that's maybe insurmountable on this issue. I don't want other people around me to be lethally armed. Have you met people? What's the line? "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.". I don't want the guy who's parking spot got taken from him to pull out his gun. I don't want someone to shoot the kid who rang their doorbell unexpectedly. A guy I used to work with would say "An armed society is a polite society" and I'm like, no. If you're pulling out guns to settle traffic disputes, you have a failed society. I don't want to live in a world where people think it's okay to pull out a lethal weapon over minor problems. I don't want to always have my speech chilled because at any moment the other guy can just shoot me dead, so I better make nice. That's the world I imagine where everyone's carrying a gun.

I also live in a city. Most of the time there's stuff you don't want to destroy behind anything you might be shooting at. Maybe it's different out in the sticks where you have wide opens spaces. I don't want to have to think about stray bullets because some macho idiot got mad that someone took his seat on the bus. I don't want to live in fear that the guy sitting next to me on the train is going to switch from fondling his gun to firing his gun.

And I know people can do violence without guns. Fists and knives and trucks and bombs exist. But those are less efficient, useful for other things, or difficult to get. A fist fight over a bus seat probably everyone walks away from. A gun fight, probably not. And yes, knives exist, but they don't seem to have the mystique that makes people stupid, and are less likely to kill a bunch of people real fast.

Probably the best compromise would be to have gun laws be at the state or city level. Nebraska is very different than new york city. I don't know how you'd handle people traveling though.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago

I would vote for you. Especially cause Satanist, but I support your entire platform.

[-] Okokimup@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Hello doppelganger. Except, I'm ex-JW, just a garden variety humanist, and have no clue what the nfa of 1934 is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bipmi@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

You know, Im obviously one person so my input matters very little, but Id much rather vote for a candidate with your ideals than any of the present options. Hopefully one day there will be a candidate with these ideals and the recognition needed to win the election

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CheddahBiscuit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

You have my vote already!

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] fratermus@lemmy.sdf.org 41 points 1 year ago

what controversial thing would the vettong process uncover about you?

Nice try, FBI!

:-)

[-] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

I'm a filthy socialist, which is enough for almost half the US.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 28 points 1 year ago

I've been putting a BA on my resume for decades, but I don't have a degree.

[-] DharmaCurious@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago

... does that work? Because I'm halfway through a degree here, and honestly, if that works...

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago

If the job requires it, they'll probably check. If the job doesn't require it but the hiring manager has a bias towards college graduates (hint: they all do) then it works.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

Probably depends on the field.

I'm a software developer and only my first job ever cared for my degree. My current employer actually never saw my degree/diploma or anything. I just said I had it.

Now, if you'd work at a bank/in finance or have a degree in a more regulated industry, they'll probably check.

[-] redballooon@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

…until someone starts to double check

I put my university, the years I attended, and my major and minor focus of study.

It's not a lie, and if pressed, I always tell the truth. It's become a non issue as my professional experience has mounted and now my resume and references speak for itself.

But, unless I'm asked directly...

Nobody needs to know I dropped out first semester of my senior year due to a crippling drug addiction. Or as I phrase it, a period in my life where I needed to tend to a family medical emergency.

[-] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 year ago

I give a shit about minorities

[-] neutron@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On top of that, being a minority alone can be a huge disadvantage.

[-] JWBananas@startrek.website 16 points 1 year ago

Student's performance is inconsistent

[-] Tutunkommon@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

They did warn you that it was your PERMANENT record...

[-] arcrust@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

Drugs mostly. No criminal records or anything, but I'd probably have to pay out some hush money

[-] Ticklemytip@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago
[-] Wahots@pawb.social 6 points 1 year ago

Just gotta own it like LBJ, who was (apparently) naked somewhat frequently in office.

[-] Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

Get people to fund their own smear campaign? Creative!

[-] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Weed. I want to make thc drug tests for any reason including employment illegal just to see if it really does cause the world burn or not (it won't)

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago

Even before getting into political stances, I've done ethical non monogamy for years. Makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

[-] bookmeat@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Nice try, FBI.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 10 points 1 year ago

Let's see here... Trans, furry, poor mental health, unmarried, jaded, has made comments about "eating the rich" that have gotten a little too real, would absolutely instruct the CIA to create Operation Glass Ceiling: a highly illegal operation designed to keep any single american from getting too wealthy, would have the CIA stage accidents involving politicians too old or who've been in office too long.

I stand a very good chance of getting elected, don't you think?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bermuda@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

Raised atheist. It's one thing to denounce a religion later in life but I never had one. Mom is ex Catholic and dad is entirely unreligious.

In the US it is incredibly rare for higher office officials to be atheist. There has never been a president that was atheist publically but a few were rumored to be privately.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] EnsignRedshirt@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

I'm actually two kids in a trenchcoat, but good luck proving it.

[-] dingus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am a casual Satanist and I'm asexual.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

My presence in Seattle in 1999 would stop my political ambitions before they started. side-eye-1 side-eye-2

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

USA:

I would be running on a social democratic platform with a focus on urbanism, affordable housing and tough-on-landlords policies, de-escalation with China, stopping state governments from being aggressive toward Mexico, and introducing a bodily autonomy amendment to the Constitution, with rhetoric that attempts to take the notion of American pride back from conservatives and warmongerers.

I was one of those people stopped being "anti-SJW" when Unite the Right happened, and later I flirted with anarcho-communist ideas (I'm still in my early 20s, this is more common with American youth than you'd think.) The former would turn off my social democratic base, the latter would discourage centrist voters. Also my views on race don't align perfectly with the American progressive orthodoxy (it has a lot to do with being mixed race, though I don't think my views are popular with mixed people either.) And I crossdress (might boost me with socdems but halt momentum with undecideds and old people.)

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

de-escalation with China

You're probably not going to get your wish on that one. The Chinese government is…well, not nice, as the Uyghurs can attest. Maybe let's let them dial back the oppression first, then make friends with them?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gaydarless@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

I have bipolar disorder lmao

[-] scorpionix@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Broadly gestures at comment history

[-] Poik@pawb.social 6 points 1 year ago

looks at home instance name That I hang out with furries. Still considered a more controversial thing than actually evil things in politics in my country.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

That I'm a conscientious objector and oppose war.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

I once wore a nazi armband and did a nazi salute for a photo.

Not sure I could recover from that.

[-] ImmortanStalin@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That I'm a dirty Marxist lol

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
75 points (91.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43811 readers
863 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS