5 ms·
Listening to Congress “debate” this made me unreasonably upset. If you as a sitting politician have received monetary benefits from a tax filing service you sho
by janalsncm 3y ago
Listening to Congress “debate” this made me unreasonably upset. If you as a sitting politician have received monetary benefits from a tax filing service you should not be allowed to speak.
- pydry 3y agoThat's standard behavior. The US is more plutocracy than democracy at this point. You can help choose the brand of oligarchy that runs the United States but you can't vote against it.
- klyrs 3y agoTechnically, you can vote for anybody you like, including yourself or Santa Claus. But no, LaRouche was never going to make it.
- porphyra 3y agoVoting for one of two parties compresses the will of the people to a single bit.
- ProllyInfamous 3y agoEven worse: individual states are on a campaign (nationally) to ban ranked-choice voting [1] among their constituencies (e.g. Tennessee recently did so, to prevent a Memphis-area jurisdiction from implementing fairer voting). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
- thfuran 3y agoThat should be treason.
- tlb 3y agoAnd, to be fair to both sides, politicians who have received money from taxpayers should not be allowed to speak.
- nilamo 3y agoIsn't that all politicians? Or is their paycheck not counted?
- oivey 3y agoSurely the system will be better if we make it so only the wealthy have roles in government.
- wheelerwj 3y agoYou forgot the /s
- alemanek 3y agoBoth sides? There should be just one side; the citizens they are supposed to be representing. This comment kind of sums up how far gone we are in America.
- nathanappere 3y agoYou're mistaking corporations for people.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- janalsncm 3y agoNo. Congress represents the American people, not corporations. There is no “both sides” between people and corporations any more than there is a both sides between Americans and Canadians when discussing a trade bill.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago>> If you as a sitting politician have received monetary benefits from a tax filing service you should not be allowed to speak Should people who are receiving welfare benefits be allowed to vote?
- micromacrofoot 3y agoI’m sorry are you implying that congresspeople are receiving monetary compensation because they live in poverty
- nathanappere 3y agoSo for you it's the same than being paid by a private corporation?
- rufus_foreman 3y agoIt's a conflict of interest.
- cess11 3y agoRight, so anyone using roads or having gone to school shouldn't vote?
- rufus_foreman 3y agoI didn't say whether anyone should or shouldn't vote. I asked a question regarding whether people with conflicts of interest should be prevented from participating in a democratic society, through voting, or as a politician. So should that be allowed or not? I think people using roads, or schools, or getting welfare should be able to vote, I believe politicians getting monetary benefits from tax filing services should be allowed to speak. I mean that's a pretty harsh decision, deciding that the government determines who is allowed to speak. That's what I was responding to.
- oivey 3y agoMore or less of a conflict of interest than members of Congress lowering their own taxes?
- afroboy 3y ago> If you as a sitting politician have received monetary benefits from a tax filing service you should not be allowed to speak. The rest of the world call this a bribe.