4 ms·

> Maybe we should take a vote? How do you think we decided on the current allocation?

• wolverine876 5y ago
  That's my point. We should vote, we did vote, and we legitimately came to the current allocation. If you disagree, feel free to persuade us to vote differently, but don't tell me I have to give up my vote and do what you want.
  • esyir 5y ago
    Whatever argument you're using right now is exactly in support of the current situation. - Votes (indirectly) set the current allocation - Votes (indirectly) set the current tax rate - Votes (indirectly) mean that Schmidt has his current money pile - Thus, this argument is perfectly in line with Schmidt choosing to take 125M of that money pile and giving it to sources he cares about. - This argument is not in line with raising his tax rate to fund whatever the voting allocation is.
    • wolverine876 5y ago
      > Whatever argument you're using right now is exactly in support of the current situation. It's in support of the current system of decision-making, not the current state of the law (which, as I said, I may disagree with). Part of that system is you and I discussing it here and changing it.