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.
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.