You’re asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don’t think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he’s easier to defeat.
This isn’t like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she’d be the candidate?
Because they’re running for a job where they should have the public interests first.
Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he’s competing to get the job, he can’t work in the public interest unless he’s elected.
Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.
I’m not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That’s what happened. Should he not run because you don’t think his policies are best for the public? Isn’t that what voting is for?
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat. This isn’t about him putting forward a platform, this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat.
So he spent money to win an election. That’s pretty normal.
This isn’t about him putting forward a platform…
Agreed. Most campaigning isn’t about simply stating a platform.
this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat…
Sabotage? That’s an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.
…and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - …
From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.
…do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he’s acted as any reasonable person would.
You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.
You’re asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don’t think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he’s easier to defeat.
This isn’t like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she’d be the candidate?
Because they’re running for a job where they should have the public interests first.
Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.
Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he’s competing to get the job, he can’t work in the public interest unless he’s elected.
I’m not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That’s what happened. Should he not run because you don’t think his policies are best for the public? Isn’t that what voting is for?
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat. This isn’t about him putting forward a platform, this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
So he spent money to win an election. That’s pretty normal.
Agreed. Most campaigning isn’t about simply stating a platform.
Sabotage? That’s an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.
From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.
I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he’s acted as any reasonable person would.
You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.
Shouldn’t even really call it a job, it’s not, it’s public service. To serve the betterment of the people.