AOC: Easy to be a bad guy in D.C.

[Revoltingest]

I am confused. Whose money are you talking about?

Employees, owners & vendors.

 

[Mister Emu]

Not buying a coffee is what you consider “nasty”. I wish I lived in your world.

Financial intimidation for the purpose of forcing someone not to run for office is pretty nasty in any world.

Just make campaigns publicly funded and give each nominee the same amount of money, media exposure and debate time. Fixed.

Which nominees? All theoretical? If I start a party of my own party I get the same funding as a major candidate?

Media exposure? That is broad. Force media to cover the Vermin Supreme campaign?

If there are mo limits, it is infeasible. If you allow limits, then the parties in control can effectively prevent any growing opposition. Nothing is fixed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Financial intimidation for the purpose of forcing someone not to run for office is pretty nasty in any world.


Which nominees? All theoretical? If I start a party of my own party I get the same funding as a major candidate?

Media exposure? That is broad. Force media to cover the Vermin Supreme campaign?

If there are mo limits, it is infeasible. If you allow limits, then the parties in control can effectively prevent any growing opposition. Nothing is fixed.

Or just the people who make it on the ballot.

 

[fantome profane]

Employees, owners & vendors.

Oh, well I fully support the right of the employees, owners and vendors to spend their money anyway they want, to buy expensive coffee drinks, or not buy expensive coffee drinks as they choose. Just as you have the right to spend your money as you wish, as I can spend my money as I choose.

Financial intimidation for the purpose of forcing someone not to run for office is pretty nasty in any world.

It is a fundamental right in a free society to decide how you wish to spend your money. It is as important as the right to vote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well Canucks do have a reputation for greater civility than many areas of America. Meanwhile, in America, in the near past we've seen forced resignations for political views and/or donations of individuals in issues of controversy.

It seems to me that if a politician - or donor - knows that it would harm their reputation for a particular donation to come to light, then the knowledge that every donation will come to light would stop the donation from happening almost all of the time, so the controversy would generally be stopped before it happened.

If people are to be politically free, they must be able to maintain political privacy.

If people are to have effective, responsible government, they need to know who their elected representatives are beholden to.

Secret payments to politicians are incompatible with a free society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, well I fully support the right of the employees, owners and vendors to spend their money anyway they want, to buy expensive coffee drinks, or not buy expensive coffee drinks as they choose. Just as you have the right to spend your money as you wish, as I can spend my money as I choose.


It is a fundamental right in a free society to decide how you wish to spend your money. It is as important as the right to vote.

No one is denying the right of people to boycott.
But consider that boycotts are like free speech....not
all things which are legal are always used for good.

Suppose you had a toy store....just one, Profane Puppets.
And then you decide to run for mayor as an independent.
Uh oh....you'd take votes away from Democrat candidate, Bob Esmith.
They get all Democrats to boycott your store unless you agree to resign
& endorse Esmith. You think this is an ethical thing to do, eh?

 

[Mister Emu]

It seems to me that if a politician - or donor - knows that it would harm their reputation for a particular donation to come to light, then the knowledge that every donation will come to light would stop the donation from happening almost all of the time

Exactly, that suppression is what we, being right minded people, want to avoid.

 

[fantome profane]

Suppose you had a toy store....just one, Profane Puppets.

First, I have to say that is a fantastic idea! I might do just that one day.

Don’t look here

Spoiler

Suppose you had a toy store....just one, Profane Puppets.
And then you decide to run for mayor as an independent.
Uh oh....you'd take votes away from Democrat candidate, Bob Esmith.
They get all Democrats to boycott your store unless you agree to resign
& endorse Esmith. You think this is an ethical thing to do, eh?

If you are asking if it is ethical to express political opinions through boycott, then yes, it absolutely is.

If someone wants to boycott my puppet store to convince me to stay out of politics then it is my job to convince them that my running for office would be a good thing. If the people arguing for the boycott are more convincing than I am, well that is just how it works in a free society.

When I eventually do open my puppet store I am sure there will be all kinds of people trying to convince people not to shop there. I will
Just have to be more convincing than they are.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are asking if it is ethical to express political opinions through boycott, then yes, it absolutely is.

It is more than mere speech. It has effects going beyond a that.
If the threat used to force you out of the race has power
because both you & your workers would suffer financially,
then it's a legal form of extortion. This is because it's not
about what your business itself is doing...it's about the
threat to cause a loss because the loss itself is intended.
And it affects unrelated parties, ie, the workers.

You remind me of the time an anti-abortion group threatened
my tenants with business interruption because they believed
I was going to rent to an abortion provider. My tenants didn't
rent to the doc...they had no say in the matter. But the thugs
threatened them in order to apply pressure to me.

 

[fantome profane]

It is more than mere speech. It has effects going beyond a that.

Voting also is more than mere speech and has effects that go beyond that. Boycott has often been described as voting with your wallet. Sometimes it has positive effects, sometimes it has negative effects (like voting). But it if an important part of living in a free society.

You talk about “force”, like the Democrats can force people not to buy coffee. It is a classic mistake to confuse persuasion with force. People have an absolute right to decide to buy coffee, or not to buy coffee. And if you can’t persuade people to buy your coffee, or puppets, or rental properties, or whatever, your business will suffer.
C’est la vie.

 

[Revoltingest]

Voting also is more than mere speech and has effects that go beyond that. Boycott has often been described as voting with your wallet. Sometimes it has positive effects, sometimes it has negative effects (like voting). But it if an important part of living in a free society.

You talk about “force”, like the Democrats can force people not to buy coffee. It is a classic mistake to confuse persuasion with force. People have an absolute right to decide to buy coffee, or not to buy coffee. And if you can’t persuade people to buy your coffee, or puppets, or rental properties, or whatever, your business will suffer.
C’est la vie.

I think you continue to disagree with a point I'm not making,
but not addressing the one I am. So we should agree to
not agree.

 

[Mister Emu]

Or just the people who make it on the ballot.

And reward the entrenched powers for making it an onerous task to get on the ballot? As I said, if you allow limitations you give the ability to absolutely prevent new opposition from arising.

Never mind that the ballot in my state isn't finalized until mid August, how do primary campaigns get funded?

Government control of campaign funds is a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Revoltingest]

And reward the entrenched powers for making it an onerous task to get on the ballot? As I said, if you allow limitations you give the ability to absolutely prevent new opposition from arising.

Never mind that the ballot in my state isn't finalized until mid August, how do primary campaigns get funded?

Government control of campaign funds is a cure worse than the disease.

It's attractive for people to see giving government more power over candidates
is a good tool to keep candidates in line. But this hope blinds them to the fact
that power given to serve us, is also power to oppress us.
Would they trust Trump to decide who gets campaign funds, & who is denied them?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And reward the entrenched powers for making it an onerous task to get on the ballot? As I said, if you allow limitations you give the ability to absolutely prevent new opposition from arising.

Never mind that the ballot in my state isn't finalized until mid August, how do primary campaigns get funded?

Government control of campaign funds is a cure worse than the disease.

It was just a suggestion. I don't really care. The whole American system is broken and stupid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly, that suppression is what we, being right minded people, want to avoid.

Corruption and conflicts of interest aren't things you think "right minded people" want to avoid?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Never mind that the ballot in my state isn't finalized until mid August, how do primary campaigns get funded?

IMO, each party should be free to set its own rules for how it chooses its candidates, including any limits on how potential nominees campaign for their party nomination and how much they can spend.

 

[Mister Emu]

Corruption and conflicts of interest aren't things you think "right minded people" want to avoid?

Where have the standards gone? The least you could do when you entirely disregard what I've said is to put in the effort to make it humorous.

IMO, each party should be free to set its own rules for how it chooses its candidates, including any limits on how potential nominees campaign for their party nomination and how much they can spend.

I have no disagreement with that, but it also has nothing to do with the conversation my quote was sourced from.

 

[Wirey]

I think @Wirey has utterly destroyed their reputation on RF.

Cram it with chunky peanut butter, guy.

 

[Shad]

I think @Wirey has utterly destroyed their reputation on RF.

Hold my bleach

 

[Revoltingest]

Cram it with chunky peanut butter, guy.

I do like it chunky.