That’s BAD? Campaign financing is almost exclusively used for shit like billboards, TV ads, and wealthy silver spoon galas and you think it’s bad that she’s using hers for charity? What the fucking bad faith, Batman.
Yes. It’s buying votes. Giving people food sith the clear implication of asking them to vote for her.
Ohhh, you still give a shit about Reddit. Okay, now I understand the type of conversation this is. L, O, fucking, L.
So her astroturfing is irrelevant just because it’s on reddit. Ah, you’re that sort of person. I don’t even have reddit downloaded anymore; you’re making a bold assumption on that front.
Almost all congresmen have extremely blatantly obvious corruption and political bribery, and you’re just pulling absolute bad faith bullshit from thin air about how giving crowd-funded money to charity is a bad thing.
This is pure what aboutism. Seriously? You’re seriously pulling what aboutism?
The fact is she has a large social media presence that explains her funding, her campaign strategy, and her so-called “astroturfing”.
Yeah surely swarms of people saying only good things about her and drawing 5x more engagement on city specific subreddits than other posts is just people loving her.
I did not instantly make up bullshit about her husband. And additionally, “past jobs” are not important, past political experience is important.
My friend, you keep throwing bullshit out, getting it wrong, and moving right along. You know there’s no evidence for your claims about how she’s funding her “lifestyle”, you know there’s no reason to claim she’s corrupt because you allege without evidence that she’s supported by her parents, which is totally goddamn normal in this goddamn economy, and you know you have no evidence that there’s actual corruption with her funding, unlike - oh no! Whataboutism! Unlike almost all of fucking congress.
That’s not how whataboutism works. When you have a mountain of public evidence of elected officials being bought and paid for, and no verifiable evidence that Kat is bought and paid for, it’s just pointing out bad fucking faith arguments.
I’m not taking anything you say on good faith, because you keep getting shit wrong and not acknowledging any of it.
Giving people food with the clear imication of asking people to vote for her
Hah. Sorry everybody - according to OP, we can’t have any more medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or school lunches. It turns out helping people is corruption.
It’s relevant when my current representative is not. She’s valued under a million dollars. You’re bringing in other reps corruption — when jan was, while too old, she was not some corrupt ass mfer.
That’s exactly how whataboutism works.
You’re completely ignoring that she still doesn’t live in district —instead of trying to contest a republican, or someone actually determinatal, she selected a safe seat to run, in a place she does not live, and never has. that alone is a major issue.
You are the type to see gangs providing people food and disaster relief and think “yeah, it’s purely good! We shouldn’t question it!”
No, I’m not terribly hung up on the location thing. I think they should absolutely be local, and she’s pretty goddamn close. I wouldn’t disapprove of someone from Chicago running in Los Angeles, for example. Provided that person is showing the fuck up and helping the people of LA.
Jan is literally retiring. I don’t think Kat had a chance of beating her in the primary but I also don’t think it’s a bad thing to run against her anyway, and I’m not whatabouting her funding with Jan’s. I think it’s entirely valid to run in a district when you clearly align with the values of that district.
Whataboutism is pretending something is okay because somebody else does it too.
But you don’t have actual evidence for that something. So it’s not whataboutism to bring up the fact that we know what that evidence looks like, and you don’t fucking have it.
I’m happy to question anything and everything. But only for the purpose of finding answers. That means you need to bring actual goddamn evidence to answer those questions. But you don’t, do you? You’re just asking questions.
No, I’m not terribly hung up on the location thing. I think they should absolutely be local, and she’s pretty goddamn close
She only just moved into the state less than a year ago…
Not caring about the location is for a different political system. In ours, location is important.
I think it’s entirely valid to run in a district when you clearly align with the values of that district.
What indicates that to you? You don’t live here, do you know the values of the area?
But you don’t, do you? You’re just asking questions.
I have provided explicit evidence in the form of largely out of state donations and not being in district as to show why she should not be elected in the district. As well as vote buying through using campaign funds in charity.
you don’t fucking have it.*
No, you just think it’s fine for someone who has not even lived in an area to represent them. That’s just a recipe for pure corruption. It means they won’t actually understand the values or wants of the areas. You are simply pretending it is fine because it suits your views best
Lol carpet bagging stopped being actual evidence of corruption a long time ago.
I think her values align with that district because she’s highly progressive, and that district has consistently elected a highly progressive representative.
Moving to that district is not explicit evidence of corruption. Taking large donations from oil companies, health insurance companies, foreign heads of state… that’s explicit evidence of corruption.
What you believe you have is implicit evidence of corruption. Not explicit. And you just. Don’t. Have it.
I do think it’s fine for someone to represent anyone from any area - as long as they can convince the people from that area to vote for them. It’s not like she’s running for city council, she’s running for federal government. We have way too many problems - problems that are affecting all Americans - to get hung up on your place of residence or birth.
But, y’know? I’d be a lot more likely to listen to your point here, if you didn’t bob and weave through so many layers of random accusations and bullshit to get here. You’ve picked - and subsequently abandoned - a whole bunch of other shit to throw at the wall, just to see what sticks.
What you believe you have is implicit evidence of corruption. Not explicit. And you just. Don’t. Have it.
I feel like you’re failing to understand that my annoyance at her not living in district is not the same issue, though it is a contributing factor, in why I think she’s likely corrupt.
I do think it’s fine for someone to represent anyone from any area - as long as they can convince the people from that area to vote for them
A complete difference in foundational thought of what makes someone a good fit for an area will go no where in discussion.
if you didn’t bob and weave through so many layers of random accusations and bullshit to get here
My point on her being out of district was from the start.
Yeah, but you didn’t stick to any of that, did you? You called her corrupt because she was currently unemployed, you claimed she was compromised because she allegedly was supported by her parents, then you claimed she wasn’t trustworthy because you found out she had a husband who could support her, then you claimed that acts of charity were signs of corruption…
If you had said “I don’t like that she’s from out of our district” and stuck with that, this might have been a productive conversation about the nature of districting, local representation, digital communications, globalization, etc. You might have been able to persuade me of your view in a conversation like that.
Yes. It’s buying votes. Giving people food sith the clear implication of asking them to vote for her.
So her astroturfing is irrelevant just because it’s on reddit. Ah, you’re that sort of person. I don’t even have reddit downloaded anymore; you’re making a bold assumption on that front.
This is pure what aboutism. Seriously? You’re seriously pulling what aboutism?
Yeah surely swarms of people saying only good things about her and drawing 5x more engagement on city specific subreddits than other posts is just people loving her.
I did not instantly make up bullshit about her husband. And additionally, “past jobs” are not important, past political experience is important.
My friend, you keep throwing bullshit out, getting it wrong, and moving right along. You know there’s no evidence for your claims about how she’s funding her “lifestyle”, you know there’s no reason to claim she’s corrupt because you allege without evidence that she’s supported by her parents, which is totally goddamn normal in this goddamn economy, and you know you have no evidence that there’s actual corruption with her funding, unlike - oh no! Whataboutism! Unlike almost all of fucking congress.
That’s not how whataboutism works. When you have a mountain of public evidence of elected officials being bought and paid for, and no verifiable evidence that Kat is bought and paid for, it’s just pointing out bad fucking faith arguments.
I’m not taking anything you say on good faith, because you keep getting shit wrong and not acknowledging any of it.
Hah. Sorry everybody - according to OP, we can’t have any more medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or school lunches. It turns out helping people is corruption.
It’s relevant when my current representative is not. She’s valued under a million dollars. You’re bringing in other reps corruption — when jan was, while too old, she was not some corrupt ass mfer.
That’s exactly how whataboutism works.
You’re completely ignoring that she still doesn’t live in district —instead of trying to contest a republican, or someone actually determinatal, she selected a safe seat to run, in a place she does not live, and never has. that alone is a major issue.
You are the type to see gangs providing people food and disaster relief and think “yeah, it’s purely good! We shouldn’t question it!”
No, I’m not terribly hung up on the location thing. I think they should absolutely be local, and she’s pretty goddamn close. I wouldn’t disapprove of someone from Chicago running in Los Angeles, for example. Provided that person is showing the fuck up and helping the people of LA.
Jan is literally retiring. I don’t think Kat had a chance of beating her in the primary but I also don’t think it’s a bad thing to run against her anyway, and I’m not whatabouting her funding with Jan’s. I think it’s entirely valid to run in a district when you clearly align with the values of that district.
Whataboutism is pretending something is okay because somebody else does it too.
But you don’t have actual evidence for that something. So it’s not whataboutism to bring up the fact that we know what that evidence looks like, and you don’t fucking have it.
I’m happy to question anything and everything. But only for the purpose of finding answers. That means you need to bring actual goddamn evidence to answer those questions. But you don’t, do you? You’re just asking questions.
She only just moved into the state less than a year ago…
Not caring about the location is for a different political system. In ours, location is important.
What indicates that to you? You don’t live here, do you know the values of the area?
I have provided explicit evidence in the form of largely out of state donations and not being in district as to show why she should not be elected in the district. As well as vote buying through using campaign funds in charity.
No, you just think it’s fine for someone who has not even lived in an area to represent them. That’s just a recipe for pure corruption. It means they won’t actually understand the values or wants of the areas. You are simply pretending it is fine because it suits your views best
Lol carpet bagging stopped being actual evidence of corruption a long time ago.
I think her values align with that district because she’s highly progressive, and that district has consistently elected a highly progressive representative.
Moving to that district is not explicit evidence of corruption. Taking large donations from oil companies, health insurance companies, foreign heads of state… that’s explicit evidence of corruption.
What you believe you have is implicit evidence of corruption. Not explicit. And you just. Don’t. Have it.
I do think it’s fine for someone to represent anyone from any area - as long as they can convince the people from that area to vote for them. It’s not like she’s running for city council, she’s running for federal government. We have way too many problems - problems that are affecting all Americans - to get hung up on your place of residence or birth.
But, y’know? I’d be a lot more likely to listen to your point here, if you didn’t bob and weave through so many layers of random accusations and bullshit to get here. You’ve picked - and subsequently abandoned - a whole bunch of other shit to throw at the wall, just to see what sticks.
You can vote for whoever you want lol. Cheers.
I feel like you’re failing to understand that my annoyance at her not living in district is not the same issue, though it is a contributing factor, in why I think she’s likely corrupt.
A complete difference in foundational thought of what makes someone a good fit for an area will go no where in discussion.
My point on her being out of district was from the start.
Yeah, but you didn’t stick to any of that, did you? You called her corrupt because she was currently unemployed, you claimed she was compromised because she allegedly was supported by her parents, then you claimed she wasn’t trustworthy because you found out she had a husband who could support her, then you claimed that acts of charity were signs of corruption…
If you had said “I don’t like that she’s from out of our district” and stuck with that, this might have been a productive conversation about the nature of districting, local representation, digital communications, globalization, etc. You might have been able to persuade me of your view in a conversation like that.
But you didn’t do that.