147
Every person in America is entitled to take a giant shit on his grave.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
147 points (98.0% liked)
politics
25076 readers
2273 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh NOW these fuckers are okay with entitlements. What a fucking joke of a country.
You're not entitled to any seats. That is supposed to be for voters to decide. You're supposed to earn seats by appealing to voters
Gerrymandering needs to be undone, not worsened.
Fun fact, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in Texas by 1.5M
Less fun fact, the GOP still wins statewide elections. That's the power of voter suppression.
I personally believe in mandatory voting. Not because more people agree with me, but because voter suppression is undemocratic. And I'm including gerrymandering as a type of voter suppression.
Depressing fact, native born Texans are more liberal than the average Texan. If it wasn't for these damn immigrants (from other states), we'd be much closer to being a blue state.
I personally believe in mandatory voting.
Yes. With a mandatory "none of the above" option for every office, and an actual majority of eligible voters is required to win, and if "none of the above" wins you get a new election with new candidates.
I've heard of a completely different idea that is designed to get politicians to appeal to everybody as much as possible, but because it is not repeatable, I think it's an infeasible idea.
Anyways, it's called "random ballot". The idea is that, either for the entire election, or for one candidate at a time, you simply choose one random ballot, and that person is the winner.
The upside of random ballot is that, no matter what percentage of a politician's constituents approved of them, it would never be enough unless it was 100%. Even if they had a 99% approval... well, even in just the federal house, there are 435 reps, so on a nationwide level, you'd regularly see things happen that only had a 1% chance.
But the huge downside is if there was any problem with the ballots or with collecting them, even if you missed a single ballot, it can completely change the results, and there would be no way to fairly recount or rerun the election.
But I do like any scheme that incentivizes politicians to try to appeal to as many constituents as possible, not just to beat other candidates.
There's still incentive an to obstruct and suppress certain demographics from voting with a scheme like that. Not to mention the whole possibility that the winner could have literally received only 1 out of 17, 000, 000 votes being pretty horrible.
Oh I was thinking about it as alongside mandatory voting. I honestly don't know that democracy really works at all without mandatory voting.
Also, the problem with a very unpopular winner isn't really too different from what we already have. How many times has a candidate won unopposed? How many times has a candidate been elected saying that they'd vote one way, and then immediately start voting the opposite way?
It probably wouldn't be great for an executive position of great power, like president or governor. Like, imagine what one moron could do with the power of pardons. But for positions where they are just a member of a large legislative body? I think the amount of damage they can do in a single term is usually somewhat limited.
mandatory voting
I forget the name of it, but one option I really liked is a kind of default voting. You register with whichever party you choose, and if you don't actively vote, your vote goes down-ticket with that party. If you do actively vote, the default gets overridden with wherever you submit, to include abstentions. So, you can still 'not vote' or vote outside your party lines, but doing either requires you to actively show up.
Still not a perfect solution, but the people's preference would be way more accurately reflected by the results.
Combine that with some ranked choice, and... - chef's kiss -
I don't trust any political party enough to give them that sort of power.
Sounds like an invitation for those in power to make the act of voting difficult.
And to suppress registration within blue areas even further, yes.
Funner fact, Texas doesn't have party affiliation on voter registration!
https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/voter-registration-certificate.html
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2020-05.shtml
We do have party affiliation. It's automatic by voting in a party primary and expires at the end of the calendar year. It's only there so that you can't vote in a primary runoff unless you voted in the original primary.
Your own link even says "Voters do not officially register with a political party."
So where are they getting these numbers?
Also fun (and sad) fact, in 4 of the last 5 Texas Gubernatorial elections, the Republican nominee and winner received fewer votes than the Democratic nominee for President from two years prior.
We can absolutely take the governorship from Abbott. We just can't be bothered to try.
I think last election the top google search was "excuses to not vote"
You're entitled to release the complete Epstein files.
As t the very least we are entitled to see the complete Epstein files.
You aren't entitled to shit, lil snowflake bitch
You're entitled to these nuts.
I hate you. I open the thread and what do I see? The comment I would’ve made if I was an hour ealier
An enlarged sense of entitlement is a classic sign of narcissism.
Trump is past narcissism.
Trump has been at despotism for at least six months.
“We” huh? This fucking guy. Doesn’t have a clue what his obligation to the American people is.
I am glad he is as old as he is. Tick, tock
Vance will be worse. Much, much worse. And it won't matter that he's not charismatic because the next elections will be rigged.
Vance walking around his Gulag:
"How long have you been in here?"
"3 years sir"
"OK. Good."
You forgot that he would ask them the following question.
“Have you ever said THANK YOU?!”
“We” is “me and my buddies”
Yeah, if he was like 40 years old, i think there'd be a lot more attempts on his life. As it is, people are just wondering when his body is gonna fail.
His sense of entitlement is insane.
As a US convicted felon, he’s entitled to three hots, a cot, and daily access to a yard. He deserves nothing more.
As someone who spent time in jail and a looney bin I can guarantee not all meals are hot. I see generally 2 cold and 1 hot. More than trump deserves. I went to jail for having an expired license. Not suspended, expired. I was in jail for three days because it was the weekend.
Trump is a felon walking around free.
Yeah, I knew it was too good to be true, but figured I’d use the old expression anyway. Regardless, may Individual 1 get what he actually deserves.
Yup, was about to say something similar. In some prisons, you’re lucky to get a bologna sandwich for lunch, which is just a single slice of bologna and cheese on white bread.
Just like republicans are entitled to rape kids.
I thought Republicans hated entitlements...