MI Gov Suspends Efforts to Accept Refugees...

HonestJoe said:

No, that's not what I said at all. Go back and try again (or just accept you're not smart enough to understand nuanced debate).

Click to expand...

Anyway, that's still the kind of thing I'm objecting to - making policy about public safety and human life on the basis (perceived) popular opinion rather than fact.

Click to expand...

"making policy about public safety and human life" That is a quote from you. You are bothered that they are making policy about public safety and human life.

"on the basis (perceived) popular opinion" Popular opinion of their constituents is exactly how they should make policy. They call that "REPRESENTATION". If they want reelected they better do just that.

rep·re·sen·ta·tion
ˌreprəˌzenˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: representation; plural noun: representations
1. the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.

So I propose that what I claimed that you said is exactly what you said:

Yeah, screw public safety, life and limb stuff. While we are at it, just forget about representatives doing all that representing crap. We can't have that. That was really lame. Really? Seriously, REALLY?

Click to expand...

NonoBadDog said:

"making policy about public safety and human life" That is a quote from you. You are bothered that they are making policy about public safety and human life.

"on the basis (perceived) popular opinion" Popular opinion of their constituents is exactly how they should make policy. They call that "REPRESENTATION". If they want reelected they better do just that.

Click to expand...

I'm not "bothered" about them making the decision, so attributing the statement "screw public safety" to me is a lie. They have a right and responsibility to make such decisions. I'm questioning their motivations and the party-political spin around them.

As far as political representation goes, that doesn't mean they blindly follow public opinion - we'd have direct democracy if we wanted to go that way. Clearly public opinion is a significant factor but our leaders should also make decisions based on a clam assessment of all the facts in the way the public often don't or can't (most don't, but that's a different issue). The fact remains that there is no rational reason to treat Syrian refugees differently before or after Paris (especially since it appears no refugees were actually involved there). Regardless, there is no way this governor could have taken a measure of public opinion across an entire state in the few hours between the Paris attack and their change in policy.

My core points stands; logically, legally and morally, if the current position is the right one now, it was the right one before Paris. The governors who have changed their policy have to be either wrong before or wrong now.

HonestJoe said:

I'm not "bothered" about them making the decision, so attributing the statement "screw public safety" to me is a lie.

Click to expand...

Youa re the one that said it. I already proved it so your denial of what you already said is a lie.

They have a right and responsibility to make such decisions. I'm questioning their motivations and the party-political spin around them.

Click to expand...

They have the duty to do what their constituents want them to do. We have discussed this already. No matter how many times you repeat it you are still wrong.

As far as political representation goes, that doesn't mean they blindly follow public opinion - we'd have direct democracy if we wanted to go that way. Clearly public opinion is a significant factor but our leaders should also make decisions based on a clam assessment of all the facts in the way the public often don't or can't (most don't, but that's a different issue).

Click to expand...

You are setting up with this statement to contradict this statement in the following statement. In this statement you are saying that a politicians duty is to represent their constituents.

The fact remains that there is no rational reason to treat Syrian refugees differently before or after Paris (especially since it appears no refugees were actually involved there). Regardless, there is no way this governor could have taken a measure of public opinion across an entire state in the few hours between the Paris attack and their change in policy.

Click to expand...

Here you are offering a rationalization as to why representatives should not do what you admitted they should do in the previous post, which is represent their citizens.

My core points stands; logically, legally and morally, if the current position is the right one now, it was the right one before Paris. The governors who have changed their policy have to be either wrong before or wrong now.

Click to expand...

I think your premise here is that representatives should never change their minds when situations like Paris come into play. One thing is always constant and that is change. Like it or not the majority of citizens in the country see irresponsible importation of refugees as a threat. That is just fact and every governor should take that into account.

NonoBadDog said:

Youa re the one that said it. I already proved it so your denial of what you already said is a lie.

Click to expand...

I never said "screw public safety". Quite the opposite actually, I'm saying public safety should be a priority, before public opinion and before political advantage. You're the one saying politicians should do whatever (they think) the voters want even if it was dangerous.

NonoBadDog said:

You are setting up with this statement to contradict this statement in the following statement. In this statement you are saying that a politicians duty is to represent their constituents.

Click to expand...

I'm acknowledging that government is difficult. Very few issues they have to consider have simple answers or all the relevant factors pointing in the same direction. If it was just about following majority public opinion, it would be easy. If it was only about following clear advice from a single expert, it would be easy. If it was only about doing whatever you felt was right, it would be easy. In reality, it's about a combination of all of these things and even individually they're rarely straight forwards. That's why when politicians claim a decision was made for a single, simple reason, you know they're lying (more than usual).

NonoBadDog said:

I think your premise here is that representatives should never change their minds when situations like Paris come into play.

Click to expand...

I don't think the fact the Paris attack happened (but before any details were clear) was a rational reason for anyone to change their opinion of procedures regarding Syrian refugees going to the US. The threat of terrorist attacks were already well known and remain just as they were in the US before Paris. It was certainly not a reason on it's own for a complete shift in policy from no apparent objection (in public at least) to a vocal flat refusal.

NonoBadDog said:

Like it or not the majority of citizens in the country see irresponsible importation of refugees as a threat. That is just fact and every governor should take that into account.

Click to expand...

The majority of US citizens probably consider Muslims a threat in general. Do you think the governor should ban Islam in their states? Public opinion over everything, even the Constitution?

HonestJoe said:

The topic is him making this decision specifically in response to the events on Paris. That's exactly the topic I addressed.

Click to expand...

Honestly, it's impossible to understand how normally intelligent people could think that Syrian refugees suddenly became more dangerous because of the ISIS attack in Paris. What it is, is, the attack was wildly successful because of the fear it instilled. That's exactly how terrorism works, how terrorism wins. The terrorist knows that the mob of people are like sheep and can be manipulated- whole nations can be driven by fear to do what the terrorist wants. In this case, the terrorists wants to deter Western countries from accepting refugees.