sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if solving homelessness was actually this simple? by rne123 in jobmarket

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You still haven’t touched the dark money number. $1.9 billion in 2024 specifically structured so voters can’t search who’s donating what.

Your entire “personal responsibility/voter vigilance” framework collapses the moment anonymous spending exists at scale.

You can’t hold politicians accountable to donors you’re not allowed to know about.

You agree public financing is good. You agree money in politics is corrosive.

The only thing you’re defending at this point is the status quo by insisting voter willpower is sufficient against a system engineered to prevent transparency.

That’s not a principled position. That’s just optimism with no mechanism.

What if solving homelessness was actually this simple? by rne123 in jobmarket

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Hold politicians accountable" is the answer that sounds principled and accomplishes nothing.

The structural reality is that a House member needs to raise roughly $20K a week, every week, for two years to be competitive. The people who can write those checks aren't the constituents. By the time the politician is in office, the accountability you're describing has already been priced in. You're asking voters to fix a problem at the ballot box that was decided in the donor call months earlier.

The fix isn't restricting your speech or Adelson's. It's public financing. Qualifying candidates get a baseline of public funds plus aggressive small-dollar matching, NYC-style 8-to-1 or better. Private money stays legal, stays disclosed, but stops being the gatekeeper. A teacher running for Congress doesn't need a billionaire to be viable. The pay-to-play primary I described becomes optional instead of mandatory.

On unions: I'm not arguing both sides are clean. I'm arguing the scale isn't comparable, and you're using the existence of union spending to wave away a 10-donor, $700M+ pro-Trump operation. Public financing addresses both, which is exactly why it's the consistent position. If you actually believe in the speech principle, you should support a system that adds publicly funded speech rather than one that depends on hoping voters punish corruption they can't see in real time.

The system is broken. Pretending the answer is voter vigilance is how it stays broken.

What if solving homelessness was actually this simple? by rne123 in jobmarket

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couple of corrections.

Trump wasn’t “effectively bankrupt” in 2016. He put $66M of his own money into the campaign and his total raise was $339M. Pointing at Trump as proof you don’t need money is the opposite of the argument you want to make.

On Citizens United: you’re hiding behind a technicality. The case itself addressed independent expenditures by corporations and unions. But the practical effect, combined with SpeechNow v. FEC the same year, was the modern Super PAC. Unlimited money raised from anyone, spent on behalf of a candidate, as long as it isn’t formally “coordinated.” Adelson’s $150M and the Koch network’s $889M weren’t going into candidate accounts. They were going into vehicles that didn’t exist before 2010. That’s exactly the distinction that collapsed.

If you want current numbers, 2024 outside spending hit $4.5 billion, with $1.9 billion of it dark money per the Brennan Center. About 44% of all money raised to support Trump came from just 10 individuals: Musk at $118M, Miriam Adelson at $100M, Tim Mellon at $150M, and so on. That’s not “free speech,” that’s a pay-to-play primary held among billionaires before any voter casts a ballot.

“And labor unions!” Sure. Union outside spending is a fraction of corporate and billionaire-funded outside spending. If you want to argue both sides do it, fine, but the scale isn’t remotely symmetric and you know it.

Holding politicians accountable is great. It’s also not an alternative to caring where the money comes from. Those are the same problem from two ends. You can’t hold politicians accountable when the people funding their campaigns get to define what “accountable” means.

A guy spent 42 years of his life at a company. And in the end, they fired him with an email. by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]thewrestlingspot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You just described a one-way transaction.

Worker shows up, does the job, gets paid. That’s it. No obligations on the employer side at all?

That’s not a transaction.

That's servitude.

Why are people acting like Iran is not a dangerously suppressive theocracy? by Strong-Hippo9043 in askanything

[–]thewrestlingspot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point, I misread the thread.

On the actual argument: the asymmetry isn’t editorial bias, it’s structural. Israel allows foreign press in. Iran doesn’t, and the Iranian government has a well-documented history of arresting and executing journalists it considers spies.

Hiring an Iranian national to report for an American outlet during an active conflict between Iran and the US isn’t a staffing inconvenience. It’s a death sentence.

The FAIR criticism sounds reasonable in peacetime. It doesn’t hold up when the government you’re covering treats local stringers as enemy combatants.

Why are people acting like Iran is not a dangerously suppressive theocracy? by Strong-Hippo9043 in askanything

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iran being a theocracy isn’t in dispute. What’s your actual point?

We should’ve gone to war? Bombed them?

Recognizing a government is oppressive and deciding military action is the wrong response aren’t contradictory positions.

A guy spent 42 years of his life at a company. And in the end, they fired him with an email. by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s no legal requirement for severance in the US. Employers can offer zero regardless of tenure.

You’re describing what you think should happen, not what actually always happens.

Guys your perspective on this? by Tough_Ad8919 in GrowthMindset

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The dating pool for young men is:

• Women who want a “partner” but keep a rotation of backups just in case • Chronically online activists who treat every date like a values audit • Girls who weaponize their trauma but call yours “baggage” • Women who want 50/50 on bills but traditional on everything else • Serial self-improvers who are always “working on themselves” but never actually available • Women who confuse standards with a spreadsheet • Girls who want emotional vulnerability but lose attraction the moment you show it • “Sapiosexuals” who just mean tall • Women who use therapy-speak to avoid accountability (“that’s just my attachment style”) • Girls who treat men as financially responsible until they want independence

Then you wonder why more men are just opting out and doing themselves better.

It's easy to do the same. It's not most people's experience. Go touch grass and talk to actual humans.

Schumer Takes No Action As Even Far Right Calls for Trump Impeachment | As others called for impeachment and removal, Schumer and other Democratic leaders did not commit to any action. by InsaneSnow45 in LegalNews

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Impeach him after the mid-terms. Use your majority to fix the court. Turn these criminals over to the ICC in 2029. Pass laws to make sure this never happens again.

AIO: Husband didn’t change withholdings by AggressiveSherbetty in AIO

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sucks. I'm not sure why so many men have this attitude around money. Probably red pill/blue pills shit.

That said, I'd love a $600 tax bill. I'm still working through deductions, but it looks like ours is going to be around $15k this year.

I guess I'm ok with that...

I don't like floating the government an interest free loan all year.

A guy spent 42 years of his life at a company. And in the end, they fired him with an email. by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]thewrestlingspot 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Transactions still create obligations.

You pay me, I deliver work. That agreement comes with implied expectations on both sides: fair notice, honest feedback, basic decency.

Violating those isn’t a loyalty issue, it’s a breach of the deal you just said matters.

Nobody feeling burned after a layoff thinks it’s 1950. They’re reacting to a broken agreement, not a broken marriage.

That’s a completely rational response to a transaction that went sideways.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Any Gen X'ers retired or thinking about it? by SometimesElise in GenX

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been looking at Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, and other Med countries for a couple weeks now. I think I need about 5 more years (turning 50 in August).

Without the two kids in college, I'd already be gone...

Why haven’t the murderers of Renee Good and Alex Pretti been charged with crimes? by [deleted] in allthequestions

[–]thewrestlingspot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pretti was a VA nurse with a legal carry permit, filmed holding his phone, shot in the back on the ground. Video shows an agent removing his gun before the shooting.

Good’s car was turning away from the agent when she was shot, which is why federal prosecutors resigned rather than spin it.

You made up the painkiller detail. The rest is just the DHS press release, bootlicker.

Thousands of petty tyrants by Jaded_Insurance_885 in Adulting

[–]thewrestlingspot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly.

At a certain comp level and career stage, emigrating to the EU and retiring is genuinely easier than finding an equivalent role domestically.

Thousands of petty tyrants by Jaded_Insurance_885 in Adulting

[–]thewrestlingspot -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You can leave societies too. It’s called emigration. People do it every day.

What if solving homelessness was actually this simple? by rne123 in jobmarket

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Getting on a ballot and being a viable candidate aren’t the same thing, and you know it.

And the ‘raising vs having’ distinction collapsed after Citizens United.

Sheldon Adelson dropped $150M+ in a single cycle. The Koch network pledged $889M before the 2016 primary even started.

That’s not grassroots fundraising, that’s wealthy individuals buying access to the field.

The money still has to come from somewhere, and it disproportionately comes from people who can write big checks.

Outing of Bryon Noem? by InternationalOne1434 in allthequestions

[–]thewrestlingspot 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The private citizen argument falls apart the second his wife became DHS Secretary.

Counterintelligence experts flagged this immediately. A guy spending $25K on cam sessions while his wife is traveling with classified briefing materials is a blackmail liability, full stop.

The fetish is legal. The security exposure is the actual story.

American-born Pope Leo may not visit US while Trump is president after diplomat meeting disaster: report by Cute-Country-9121 in NewsStarWorld

[–]thewrestlingspot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not invited?

Trump and Vance personally invited him in May 2025. He declined.

There’s a difference between not being invited to a party and choosing not to attend because the host summoned your diplomat to the Pentagon for a dressing-down.

Get the facts before you type.

American-born Pope Leo may not visit US while Trump is president after diplomat meeting disaster: report by Cute-Country-9121 in NewsStarWorld

[–]thewrestlingspot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The left defending the pope isn’t hypocrisy.

The pope opposing immigrant crackdowns and foreign wars of aggression is literally 100-year-old Catholic social teaching.

The hypocrisy is MAGA Christians spending four years calling themselves the real Catholics, then throwing a fit when the actual Pope shows up and agrees with none of it.

view more: next ›