I didn't say you endorsed OPs views. You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
OP is a citizen in one country who donated to a political movement in another country. In discussing the "why" of that, you asked me:
>So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries?
That's exactly what OP did. The manner in which you phrase your question, along with your follow up question that assumed my answer to the former would be, "Yes", strongly implies I have endorsed OP's views.
>You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
One part of the US funding political action in another US state; someone in Brazil funding political action in India; someone on the moon funding political action on Venus. The point is that $PERSON1 from $REGION1 may feel that $POLITICALMOVEMENT in $REGION2 holds a lot of views that $PERSON1 strongly believes in, and as such they want to donate to them. This is backed up by OP's response confirming shared views. That's what was asked - why donate to another country? - and all I did was given a reason why, named locales be damned.
Now, I can grant that state-to-state and country-to-country are different things. That said, for the sake of a quick example pulled out of my ass, it worked; you're just unable to see the forest for the trees.
