Cap1691

Cap1691 t1_j7ded9x wrote

Reply to comment by somedudevt in Open Position: Line cook. by [deleted]

Sorry if I misunderstood your post. Now that you’ve expanded your point I understand what you were saying and totally agree with you. We need a fundamental change in our country, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.

0

Cap1691 t1_j7bpiyq wrote

First, you have to remember that we have a part time legislature with a full time job to do. Second someone has to investigate the allegations and develop charges. That alone is a significant amount of work. Then the House has to vote to impeach. After that the senate has to hold a trial. All of this has to happen while still conducting the other business before the legislature. So yeah, it’s a slow, laborious process.

1

Cap1691 t1_j76g87h wrote

This. And, I believe the only way currently to remove a Sheriff is by legislative impeachment, a slow laborious process. The reason we are seeing so much corruption and abuse of office among sheriffs is due to lack of oversight and accountability. I fully support legislation to curb this abuse of office

16

Cap1691 t1_ivohg2k wrote

Reply to comment by somedudevt in Why Phil Scott again? by rufustphish

First, I don't find her extreme at all. I'd rather have a feisty governor than a conservative play it safe governor. How are we ever going make and realize change if we just cling to the status quo? We need Brenda Siegels to shake things up and make us think. Also, don't you think that she might take a different approach from a sit-in on an issue of concern if she were governor? The position of governor would afford her a strong voice that might not need to resort to activism. On the other hand if, even with that stronger voice, she was still not being heard and she took an activist approach, I would applaud that. We need change in this country and we need our representatives to be willing to stand up, speak out, and take action.

3