POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

In THIS particular case, I am against abortion except when mother is in danger/rape/etc you have heard all the cliched exceptions.

I see and understand both sides of the argument. I would vote how the majority wants me to vote. I'm the voice of THEM, not ME, as an elected official.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

In THIS particular case, I am against abortion except when mother is in danger/rape/etc you have heard all the cliched exceptions.

I see and understand both sides of the argument. I would vote how the majority wants me to vote. I'm the voice of THEM, not ME, as an elected official.

I expect my representatives to be leaders rather than mere proxies.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

I expect my representatives to be leaders rather than mere proxies.

They are the voice of the people, are they not? They can weigh in on things, provide their view. But if it's not a completely ridiculous idea (like say "bestiality" should be legal") they should vote the majority of the area they represent.

And yeah, this is why I would fail at being a politician.

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

But- they now have access to a far wider knowledge base and hopefully and understanding of the impact of said decisions. With all the extra info and taking the greater good into consideration they may need to compromise or change their stance. That was how we got things done until the knuckle draggers refused to look at any evidence, refused to compromise.

I want my elected official to take all evidence into consideration and vote intelligently (pipe dream!!!)

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

They are the voice of the people, are they not? They can weigh in on things, provide their view. But if it's not a completely ridiculous idea (like say "bestiality" should be legal") they should vote the majority of the area they represent.

And yeah, this is why I would fail at being a politician.

There is your problem. FOr some people it is totally ridiculous to deny a person the right to have abortion but also deny them any and all support to feed, clothe, provide a roof, healthcare, safe environment

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

But- they now have access to a far wider knowledge base and hopefully and understanding of the impact of said decisions. With all the extra info and taking the greater good into consideration they may need to compromise or change their stance. That was how we got things done until the knuckle draggers refused to look at any evidence, refused to compromise.

I want my elected official to take all evidence into consideration and vote intelligently (pipe dream!!!)

This is related to what I'm saying. An elected official's decision should not be his/her PERSONAL decision based on THEIR beliefs. It should be the will of the people (again, IF it is sensible).

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

This is related to what I'm saying. An elected official's decision should not be his/her PERSONAL decision based on THEIR beliefs. It should be the will of the people (again, IF it is sensible).

The end point is where people diverge on sensible. There is 'morality' but then where does that morality stop. When you have constituents who profess to be pro-life but then do not espouse any of the things that make them that except being pro-birth then they are giving the leader a mixed message. It is up the leader to chose what makes sense. (What would really make sense is free birth control, good education. Both of which many pro-life folks reject out of hand)

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

But- they now have access to a far wider knowledge base and hopefully and understanding of the impact of said decisions. With all the extra info and taking the greater good into consideration they may need to compromise or change their stance. That was how we got things done until the knuckle draggers refused to look at any evidence, refused to compromise.

I want my elected official to take all evidence into consideration and vote intelligently (pipe dream!!!)

Too late - they're bought and paid for.

There was a half-joking suggestion made in one of these threads some years back that our Reps and Senators should have to wear the logos of their biggest 3-4 campaign donors, like sponsored athletes.

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Too late - they're bought and paid for.

There was a half-joking suggestion made in one of these threads some years back that our Reps and Senators should have to wear the logos of their biggest 3-4 campaign donors, like sponsored athletes.

Heh. I was speaking hypothetically. We all know it is rare to have a purist

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Heh. I was speaking hypothetically. We all know it is rare to have a purist

Rare? I'd darn near say it's impossible. It's pathetic. Purists are weeded out because they don't play the game.

 

[mookie1995]

Disagree. There were any number of people not on their a55es, actively pushing for action. THen there were the OMG you are going to take all the toys away!!1!1!11!!!, 2nd Amendment, wail, gnash your teeth folks who did not sit on their collective a55es but actively blocked any type of intelligent debate or action- labeling any attempt at debate or discussion in inflammatory terms. This was not sitting on collective a55es. This was actively preventing action

Ask China. 1 child rule- aborting females to point there aren't enough and still they persist

Actively pushing for action?

So sitting on a couch telling someone what they should do? Or at an airport looking for flights?

 

[mookie1995]

He shouldn't lie about it to get their votes. Plus being a representative doesn't mean being a puppet for your voters and having to vote whatever way the popularity poll goes in a given week. It means making decisions on their behalf.

"Being a" means raising $$$ and getting re-elected

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

I expect my representatives to be leaders rather than mere proxies.

We elect them because we think they will make the right decision not necessarily the decision I agree with.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

We elect them because we think they will make the right decision not necessarily the decision I agree with.

Quite similar to my take. I hope they are the voice of the people, and not themselves.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

That answer makes no sense. If my population wants something that is sensible, but I disagree with, I'd like to think I'd vote their way. That is what I was elected for.

That is not correct. When you vote for a person to represent you, you aren't voting for someone to vote how you want them to vote. You're voting for someone that you trust to make the RIGHT decision.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

That is not correct. When you vote for a person to represent you, you aren't voting for someone to vote how you want them to vote. You're voting for someone that you trust to make the RIGHT decision.

And if it's sensible AND in the majority, that's how you vote. Your PERSONAL opinion should not matter. You may disagree with say, 90% of the vote. Guess what? You may be in the wrong. You vote for who you represent.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Quite similar to my take. I hope they are the voice of the people, and not themselves.

No. It's almost the opposite of what you said.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

No. It's almost the opposite of what you said.

Colonel Contrarian strikes again.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Colonel Contrarian strikes again.

No, not in this case. If you have a politician that agrees with 100% of your views, even the ones that haven't arisen yet, good for you. But if not, you should be voting for the person you most trust to make the best decision based on their beliefs.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

No, not in this case. If you have a politician that agrees with 100% of your views, even the ones that haven't arisen yet, good for you. But if not, you should be voting for the person you most trust to make the best decision based on their beliefs.

Bingo!