ueu33hyrdd

You could literally say the same thing about the Steele Dossier sponsored by the Clinton Campaign, Steele was identified as connected to a foreign government influence campaign as well. A candidate literally cooperated with a foreign actor with undisclosed Russian ties to generate evidence against their opponent which they knew would be disseminated by the American IC. Not having these protections just incentivizes whoever currently controls the apparatus to strategically investigate their party's opposition.

Edit: Putting this here since I've reached my reply cap. There was a request for citations. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/report-footnotes-show-fbi-k...

Whether it harmonizes perfectly with the spirit of equal justice or not is irrelevant to whether or not it still represents an improvement over the status quo. Your hypothetical is similarly asanine and works mainly as a straw man because, as far as the integrity of the democratic process, there's a clear difference between shielding individuals competing in a public election and random rich people on the street. You're literally arguing against something that would improve the integrity of the system.

It's also how the competent rise though, in #1 they not only service a need but they identify that need on their own and in #4 they're completing tickets that are chosen partially based on how popular their resolution will be. What's the alternative, choose admins at random and ignore the people who have shown the most promise for understanding and contributing to tasks related to being an admin?

This kind of language is exactly why people respond poorly to the term. Most people have worked hard for the things they have including white people, there isn't a secret check that you get every year for being in the pale people club. If you're middle class or lower there's no reason for a white person to side with a politician who is making their platform based around white priviledge because all it means for them is that they get to get to pay the same taxes to be less of a priority.

I don't get the hostility towards requiring a warrant to spy on election candidates. Even if the goal is similar protections for everybody, it's obvious that measures designed to prevent parties from abusing the surveillance apparatus for political ends is a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a better tool for ensuring one side gets muck raked harder than the other.