myydraal.bsky.social
499 posts
127 followers
433 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It gets better - they are crashing out
comment in response to
post
People like a clean asshole. I know I do. That's why 😋
comment in response to
post
Came here to say this. Not a fan of tying these two thoughts together as if it's bad thing we try and find life on other planets.
comment in response to
post
Expecting the Catholic Church to be a staunch ally to LGBTQ rights is the path to disappointment is all I am saying.
They never were. They softened their rhetoric a little under Francis, and Leo just basically continued Francie's positions, so why are people surprised by this, is all I am saying?
comment in response to
post
Ummm, what?
comment in response to
post
Causation as well*
comment in response to
post
Oh, I am sure there is correlation - I'm not saying that's a *good thing*. I'm just calling a spade a spade tbc
comment in response to
post
Let's just take the wins on the things we can agree on, and critic the others without throwing the baby with the bathwater especially in this time of rising racism and right power in the world worldwide.
comment in response to
post
The other thing people need to remember is that the vaste majority of the world is way more homophobic then the US and Europe.
And much of Catholics have presence there - like Africa and South America.
Expecting some miraculous change of policy (which this isn't a change from Francis) seems odd.
comment in response to
post
This - and we should take the wins on immigrants rights and peace where we can with him. Not assume that the new Pope is gonna be some radical leftist. Francis was progressive but he had the same doctrine as stated here...
comment in response to
post
Ya apparently people don't actually read deeply into the difference between doctrine and some of the softening and outreach Francis did with LGBTQ.
comment in response to
post
He never changed church doctrine defining marriage as a union between man and woman and homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered.”
comment in response to
post
"Pope Francis strongly reaffirmed core Catholic teaching opposing abortion and euthanasia, saying they were evidence of today’s “throwaway culture.” But he also made reaching out to LGBTQ+ Catholics a hallmark, insisting they are welcome in the church.
comment in response to
post
Um....Pope Francis never changed that. He just had some LGBTQ outreach.
apnews.com/article/vati...
comment in response to
post
Gotta change our building codes then I guess
comment in response to
post
I mean I agree with increasing teacher pay as well. But we can do both?
comment in response to
post
Many of them start wealthy though
comment in response to
post
I bring this up mostly cause when people talk about this issue they talk about how wealthy Congress folks are without asking why.
comment in response to
post
Banning the most perversive incentives - direct trading, sposered ads or speaking engagements, basically money gained through access to the Congress person.
comment in response to
post
Just to be clear my utopian optimal would be a world where Congress folk are truly public servants focused on solving problems for us.
Removing money fundraising as part of the system. Paying them well enough it can compete well so we don't have as much incentives for public private cross polination
comment in response to
post
NP, I may be coming at this hot.
comment in response to
post
Campaign funding =/= as personal income, which is what I am more talking about since the subject at hand is stock trading, i.e. personal finances.
comment in response to
post
I agree with publicly funded campaigns and zero raising of money. 100%>\. That doesn't change my other points.
comment in response to
post
What their reason might be and why they may not run, or what they may run into when they do, then we are doomed to just do surface level bullshit that never solves a foddanm thing
comment in response to
post
I just wish people were more creative and thoughtful of how these different incentive structures intertwine past the first inclination. When we don't take time to think these through by placing ourselves in the shoes of different types of people that would want to run for office, while also
comment in response to
post
Banning perverse incentives as much as possible, or you just get anouther cropping of these perverse incentives.
The thing about this, is these decisions are usually small. They are day to day detraction of the person due to the environment and pressures of the job.
comment in response to
post
Like, it'll just find new avenues of perverae unless we pair the reforms with a change in overall incentive structures, i.e. pay amounts, long term benefits, ect
Because these positions are positions of power to some degree, either they are payed proportional to their actual power by the state whil
comment in response to
post
I find it wild that people are unwilling to look at the incentives at the individual level that leads to things like stock trading, influence pediling, ect and just say "well if we ban it all, it solves the problem!".
comment in response to
post
Sure, I agree campaigns.should.be paid with public funds.
But why do we want to only attract those that have money and then also want power through politics by not paying Congress folks all that much.
For example Colorado pays state Congress people like 30k a year. That is homeless amounts of money
comment in response to
post
Perservive incentives on the average which overtime should help when paired with other means of getting money out of politics.
comment in response to
post
Through books, appearances, speaking engagements, ect.
Idk if high pay would eliminate this, but if we restrict what Congress folks can do to raise money we need to pair it with adequate pay that is competitive for the power they hold, not because they nessicarly deserve it, but because it reduces
comment in response to
post
Competitive you tend to select for certain things either in the candidates or their future choices once they get elected.
I.e. either they already had money or they invetiably find ways to use their public presence to enrich themselves in other ways - either through the stock trading but also
comment in response to
post
Idk, zero ownership seems like a impractical talking point. Perhaps, divestments and blind trusts.
One thing that I think often gets overlooked in a lot of politics around these things is congressional pay - both at state and national levels.
If your pay from the state isn't high enough to be
comment in response to
post
The block culture here has gotten a little out of hand lol
comment in response to
post
This isn't a buying it thing.
I provided evidence from a *left leaning research group*.
You look at the polls and exit polls, and it's clear.
Why are we refusing to talk about things that caused us to *loose*. Or I guess we can enter a fascist state by insulting all young men and hope that goes well