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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
No, it's not remotely shifting the goal posts. You explicitly said encumbants shouldn't be allowed to campaign on fixing issues if they're not already working to fix those issues.
What I wrote is a direct and obvious consequence of such a law/policy, the goal posts haven't moved a fucking mm.
And sure, some sort of promise or prevention for that would be great, but it's effectively impossible to codify it into law in a way that isn't easily exploitable, circumventable or just has worse consequences than the thing it prevents.
So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can't start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?
And wouldn't this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.
In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.
Can you imagine the never ending month long shit show from Republicans if Obama had talked to a reporter like that ? You'd never hear the fucking end of it.
So then why isn't EVERY campaign promise by the encumbant president/party problematic in the same way ?
So then what's (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?
A) who says I'm lying
B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises
Though this becomes wishy with politicians/parties. You offering to pay for people's healthcare costs if they vote for your favourite candidate would probably be illegal, but a candidate promising to institute universal healthcare is just a campaign promise, so this law leaves a very legitimate open question of when something a candidate says stops being a campaign promise and starts being a legally problematic bribe, because ultimately all campaign promises boil down to "vote for me and I will do something good for you/something you like".
You could very much argue that a candidate promising UBI is effectively not very different from what Trump promised.
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.