Followers can be monetized. Please, propose something that addresses the actual action as opposed to the potential. So do I get a delta for changing you mind that followers can be monetized? Because previously you indicated that wasn’t true right? As for your point about punishing an action is “the potential”, After all isn’t this why there are ethics guidelines?
So you understand where the lines are attracted? If there is no range to mix and then I keep coming back and pull a series and say you crossed it, that doesn’t seem fair would it? So, I propose that we include sociable media followers accrued in office in the existing ethics rules that forbid the reality and appearance of issues of interest. Such as some fairly complicated stuff like lobbying and going to work for companies who benefited from your legislation and other less apparent things like franking.
You have yet to really demonstrate it necessarily true supporters always equal some form of monetary settlement. Ethics and guidelines of conduct in general don’t require a warranty of result to can be found. which were true, then great many guidelines wouldn’t exist. Like the one against emoluments.
I know you do not like it while I bring it up, but there’s no 100% warranty that easily accept a settlement from Russia that I am going to legislate in its favor. But it sure would call into question any votes I might make and generally toss sand into the gears of government.
- One using one Coaching IN THE Founders
- How to Create a Real Estate Website
- Taking Online Surveys
- S2 member
- Make sure you have flipped Discovery On (It allow others to see your personal computer)
- Make changes to your test site
- Research and purchase template used as a basis for design
Because what ails those gears is the general belief that our system is equitable rather than susceptible to being bought. This I believe is the issue with Social Media follower monetization. Obama established a new personal account and advertised it. That was the model I had formed in mind for my Sally Jones hypothetical.
If anything, your proposal would have made this changeover easier because you want to make it easy to follow. And I’d say that advertising that before departing office is problematic. What you call “my proposal” about how to remedy this conflict appealing isn’t the primary of my CMV at all. Its an example of how one could solve the problem.
No question there are better ways! But exactly what does that matter if you don’t even agree there’s a there there? If you don’t believe there’s a disease, why argue over the treatment then? Which leads me to think you are not really trying to improve my view but either just sharpening your rhetorical skills or seeking to muddy the waters around the best issue by simply blasting away and seeing what hits?