Oh, I get that. I meant bitches in the California sense.
No, Iâm calling a human running for office a human running for office.
Can we address the question? Why is any method of making running for office anything other than a moneyfest immoral, while candidates I vote against wasting fortunes to murder people overseas something I have to accept?
6 Likes
Because running for office is not a âmoneyfest,â and the changes youâre suggesting would violate my freedom of association by giving my money to candidates I donât support.
If the system werenât corrupt at the top levels, then the top level elections would be like the municipal elections: a mix of personality contests, some grandstanding, the issues that matter to people and who likes who. Instead the nationals are nothing like anywhere else in the world. A whole other level of nasty, moneyfesting, fully developmentally disabled bullshit. Nothing like the local elections. So, something is wrong, definitely. Running for office at the big levels IS a moneyfest. Itâs corrupt.
@goodpasture: What do you think Rick Perry was talking about all during lunch? I can summarize it in one word: MONEY! We need money for this. We need money to get that. Money money fuckin money. Thatâs ALL they talked about in that restaurant today.
7 Likes
Yes, it is a moneyfest. Money buys influenceâŚwhich is why the military-industrial complex is so strong and people are still complaining about the âestate taxâ like itâs ever impacted somebody who wasnât extremely well off already.
And you havenât answered the entire question. Youâre complaining about your money being used for things you donât like and really stuck on that, but discounting the fact that my money is used for things -I- donât likeâŚexcept the difference here is the money usage Iâm complaining about is murder and destruction and youâre complaining about somebody you disagree with talking.
Please address the entire question in context. Youâve described your money being used to fund elections as âimmoralâ, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
7 Likes
He was well-behaved. I had the BEST fish tacos. Love that place.
1 Like
No, the difference is between someone who is in government and someone who is not in government.
Can you really not see the difference?
This is missing the point. Youâve said that once someone is elected they have gained the consent of the people to spend money on all sorts of things:
- spend it on roads even if you donât benefit from them, because they are a government agent.
- spend it on wars even if you donât agree with them, because they are a government agent.
- spend it on organizations even if you donât approve of them, because they are a government agent.
- spend it on candidates even if you donât support them, because they are a government agent.
Except youâre claiming the last one, and only the last one, is a violation of your freedom. What exactly makes it different from the others? You havenât said.
6 Likes
I can, I just think your priorities are batshit crazy.
I canât comprehend why youâd obsess over such an insignificant point as if it was a moral issue and be totally uninterested in results that reflect actual morality.
7 Likes
Think bigger - let popobawa write all the debate questions.
13 Likes
A government agentâs actions are expended on behalf of the entire country. A candidateâs actions are expended on behalf of himself.
Simple enough?
Someone who has the the legal and moral right to spend our money versus someone who is merely seeking that legal and more right is not an insignificant point. Itâs the whole ballgame.
@popobawa4u for Supreme Emperor of the Universe!!!
1 Like
Yeah, still sounds like youâre picking nits selectively rather than being focused on results or the bigger picture. As in âDonât give this guy money, but itâs okay if the guys we have left waste ten times as much, start wars, and create more terroristsâ
Iâm sorry, I just canât respect that worldview. It seems petty and immature to me.
2 Likes
You donât seem to grasp the distinction between someone who has been elected by a majority of voters (and therefore has the moral right to spend taxpayer money on various projects) and someone who is merely seeking that power (and will therefore spend my money on something that benefits him personally, rather than what benefits the entire country).
I donât support Woodrow Wilson; he has a right to engage in World War I, because heâs the president. I donât support George W. Bush; he has a right to engage in Iraq, because heâs the president. I donât support John McCain and Sarah Palin; they donât have any right to my tax money, because they are not agents of the government â If I choose to support them, and then they win, then they have a moral right to take my tax money for whatever country they want to bomb, no matter what I think about it, because thatâs how a republic works.
The selection at Warby Parker?
2 Likes
[quote=âgoodpasture, post:245, topic:70876â]A government agentâs actions are expended on behalf of the entire
country. A candidateâs actions are expended on behalf of himself.
Simple enough?[/quote]
On the contrary, itâs special pleading because itâs not an inherent difference between the cases, just a matter of changing how you describe them. In every other case, the thing youâve said counts is that an elected government agent has decided to spend the money:
- You didnât ask that the road act on behalf of the country before they could pay for it.
- You didnât ask that the war act on behalf of the country before they could pay for it.
- You didnât ask that the organization act on behalf of the country before they could pay for it.
- For the candidate, though, you do ask that they act on behalf of the country before the government agent can pay for it.
In this one case you have requirements on what is receiving the money, in all the others only for who is spending the money. Thatâs the difference you havenât given any explanation for.
6 Likes
Dude, I totally grasp the distinction, so does everyone here. Why do you keep saying that?
I simply disagree that the distinction is important and consider it a low priority in the real world we live in. I do not consider it worthy of holding back progress.
Also, why do you think somebody who I voted against in a governmental system that I had NO part in creating has a moral right to do things that result in the deaths of others?
That is not the case, nobody has the moral right to something immoral. Do you even know what that word means???
10 Likes
Because thatâs how a republic works â the one who gets the most votes gets to run things, no matter what the losing side thinks.
If you havenât won, you donât get to play with the piggy bank.
A government official has the consent of the governed; a candidate has not yet received the consent of the governed because he has not been elected.
I didnât sign some paper to get born here, nor did anybody else. I didnât volunteer for this system. I didnât create it. I had nothing to do with itâs origin.
I do not lose my right to complain about it because you decide to legitimize it excessively in one way while nitpicking absurdly about it another way. Youâre being very selective in what you approve of, and youâre also completely unfocused on the greater good or useful results. Why should your opinion on the matter be given any credence?
5 Likes
