• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.

          • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Watching from outside, imho the American gun control issues are hampering cooperation in more important areas.

            I know you consider it a very emotional issue but compared to tax reform, lgbtq rights, racism, employee rights, homelessness etc, it’s not worth getting stuck on.

            Saying this as someone who lived in countries with both high (although not US level) and low gun ownership.

        • Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Damned if I didn’t agree with most of your points. Common sense is a hell of a thing, yet so rare.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        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.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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.

  • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    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?

    • jammenfaenda@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Party officials who want to make sure there aren’t any skeletons in your closet that will cause an issue on the campaign trail.

  • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.)

  • arcrust@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

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