• Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.