If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.
It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.
So where’s the line ?
I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn’t the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.
Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.
You’re all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it’s no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can’t accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.
One is just handing out money and the other is passing a written law on the books through the entire legislative process.
Edit: expanding on this since you seem genuine and not a concern troll:
The point of the legislative process is that there are checks and balances. If you write and pass a law, the courts can challenge it. In the end if the law stands it has a much more legitimate mandate from the people.
Also laws are not written and passed by one person, you have to get enough majority consensus from the entire legislative body. Skipping that process is called a dictatorship or monarchy.
The difference is that when someone campaigns on UBI, they are talking about laws that they want to pass, through the entire legislative process. Please also see my edit to my first comment that I wrote at the same time you were asking this question.
Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.
If it’s so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they’re elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?
I also notice that you took time to reply to this comment, but completely ignored the other one where I substantively refute your point. Very intellectually mature and honest of you.
Can’t tell the difference between “I will pay you to vote the way I want” vs “I will fight for progressive policies to set a minimum standard quality of life”, smh
Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.
But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?
If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.
It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.
So where’s the line ?
I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn’t the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.
Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.
You’re all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it’s no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can’t accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.
One is just handing out money and the other is passing a written law on the books through the entire legislative process.
Edit: expanding on this since you seem genuine and not a concern troll:
The point of the legislative process is that there are checks and balances. If you write and pass a law, the courts can challenge it. In the end if the law stands it has a much more legitimate mandate from the people.
Also laws are not written and passed by one person, you have to get enough majority consensus from the entire legislative body. Skipping that process is called a dictatorship or monarchy.
So then what’s (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?
The difference is that when someone campaigns on UBI, they are talking about laws that they want to pass, through the entire legislative process. Please also see my edit to my first comment that I wrote at the same time you were asking this question.
Holy fuck this is the stupidest take I ever heard. Congrats!
Edit because it’s stupid: universal basic income isnt a onetime bribe.
Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.
If it’s so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they’re elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?
So you’re saying my comment is a worse take than literally everything MAGAt and Trump have done and said over the past years ? Really ?
This is like child logic. Are you under 18? Because thatll explain it.
Literally just going by what you said. Verbatim.
I also notice that you took time to reply to this comment, but completely ignored the other one where I substantively refute your point. Very intellectually mature and honest of you.
direct payment in exchance for a vote.
the former in your example benefits even those who do not vote for you.
One difference is that you’d be lying avputbthe former whereas the latter would be a political thing you’d kinda have to do
A) who says I’m lying
B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises
Can’t tell the difference between “I will pay you to vote the way I want” vs “I will fight for progressive policies to set a minimum standard quality of life”, smh
Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.
But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?