3 ms·

> What value does this have? I'm literally trying to get him voted out because he gets rich harming people I care about. If you think an elected official work

> What value does this have? I'm literally trying to get him voted out because he gets rich harming people I care about. If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires.

akira2501 2y ago
> he gets rich harming people I care about. Assertions of opinion as if they were fact is part of what makes me bristle. To do this and then act surprised that I might not exactly share your view and that it would take extreme energy on your part to continue is a bit churlish, don't you think? > If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office I do think that. If it's not happening in your mind, then I'd have to ask, what means are you using to judge the "interests of the constituency?" In particular, outside of polling, how can you be confident your measure truly represents a majority? > I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. It's not that I begrudge you your position, it's just that I openly wonder if this is the best place and means to put forth these opinions. Again, if you are worried that votes will not be effective, then broadcasting this message where the majority already likely holds this view seems, to me, misguided.
- digging 2y ago
  > > he gets rich harming people I care about. > Assertions of opinion as if they were fact How is that an opinion? I stated what's happening as plainly as I could. I didn't say "him bad" - I said his work does harm to people I care about, which it does; and that he gets rich doing it, which he does. Those aren't opinions, they're facts. You can dispute that they're true facts, but calling them opinions does not make sense. > I do think that. Ok, well, that's unfortunate.
lp0_on_fire 2y ago
> If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. If enough of his constituency thinks he is working against their interests they will vote him out. Conversely, if enough of his constituency thinks he is working for their interests he will get (re)elected. Democracy means sometimes people you don't like are elected to positions you'd rather they not be in, but that's the rub.
- digging 2y ago
  > Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. As I said, I can't continue this conversation. Our understandings are too far apart.
  - lp0_on_fire 2y ago
    Your understanding seems to be "the rubes are too stupid to know what's for their own good" so it's probably good we don't continue the conversation - it makes you dangerous.
    - digging 2y ago
      Not the case

akira2501 2y ago

> he gets rich harming people I care about. Assertions of opinion as if they were fact is part of what makes me bristle. To do this and then act surprised that I might not exactly share your view and that it would take extreme energy on your part to continue is a bit churlish, don't you think? > If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office I do think that. If it's not happening in your mind, then I'd have to ask, what means are you using to judge the "interests of the constituency?" In particular, outside of polling, how can you be confident your measure truly represents a majority? > I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. It's not that I begrudge you your position, it's just that I openly wonder if this is the best place and means to put forth these opinions. Again, if you are worried that votes will not be effective, then broadcasting this message where the majority already likely holds this view seems, to me, misguided.

digging 2y ago
> > he gets rich harming people I care about. > Assertions of opinion as if they were fact How is that an opinion? I stated what's happening as plainly as I could. I didn't say "him bad" - I said his work does harm to people I care about, which it does; and that he gets rich doing it, which he does. Those aren't opinions, they're facts. You can dispute that they're true facts, but calling them opinions does not make sense. > I do think that. Ok, well, that's unfortunate.

lp0_on_fire 2y ago

> If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. If enough of his constituency thinks he is working against their interests they will vote him out. Conversely, if enough of his constituency thinks he is working for their interests he will get (re)elected. Democracy means sometimes people you don't like are elected to positions you'd rather they not be in, but that's the rub.

digging 2y ago
> Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. As I said, I can't continue this conversation. Our understandings are too far apart.
- lp0_on_fire 2y ago
  Your understanding seems to be "the rubes are too stupid to know what's for their own good" so it's probably good we don't continue the conversation - it makes you dangerous.
  - digging 2y ago
    Not the case