View Poll Results: See Poll question at top of OP.

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 25.00%
  • No

    15 53.57%
  • Other

    6 21.43%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

  1. #1
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

    There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

    First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

    Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

    As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

    There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

    So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

    The same goes for many of these others.

    I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

    What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

    I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

  2. #2
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,703

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

    I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"
    I agree that Republicans were elected and reelected to the House on a platform that largely rested on the premise of important fiscal conservative and anti-ACA impulses. I also am aware that the President of the United States was re-elected on the basis of less fiscal restraint and the defense of the ACA. I am also aware that the Senate to a large extent remains a Democratic stronghold with similar ideas in mind as the President. This will of course cause conflict and confusion over whose mandate takes primacy.

    I'm perhaps in the minority, but I believe that there are tactical limitations to implementing campaign promises. I even suggest that politicians should stretch the truth as to the extent that they will fulfill their promises, and prefer less chaotic resolutions. I also think that those that say they would tolerate a government shutdown are probably not considering how often many will not, or that their own minds will change in the process. In the end it may look like I advocate for principle-less, shrewd machine politicians that lean toward the status-quo, but I am more or less a firm believer in not resorting to dramatic actions with every passing bill in Congress. Eventually the attempts to remove a piece of legislation become disproportionate to the prudent course.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  3. #3
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    No, it seems rather silly to really blame an elected politician for doing what their constituents elected them to do. Far more sensible to blame the constituents who actually believe such insane and dangerous things are a good idea. The politicians are just selling to a market. Let's blame the market that actually eats up crap like supply side economics and "starve the beast" and the mathematically wrong idea that shutting down the government will save us money.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #4
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

    There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

    First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, "by and large", act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.
    I can agree with this with a caveat. Namely, the by and large part is a large exception. I think many politicians run on platforms they know they cannot implement.

    Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.
    Yes and no. I think it is the job of politicians to work towards the goals they campaigned on within reason. If you can't get something done, you can't get it done. Wasting time on it does not serve your constituency. You lay out your beliefs while campaigning, but that should not blind you to reality. In this case, ACA is not going away. "Shutting down the government" and not raising the debt ceiling is not going to change it. You have competing priorities. Is your primary job to do this one thing, or to do the best you can do overall, compromising and working to get what you can get? Which serves your constituency better?
    As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

    There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

    So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?
    The issue is exactly what best serves her constituency. Can she stop ACA? No. Are these tactics going to work? No. Do they have a potential to harm those people she does serve? Yes.

    The same goes for many of these others.

    I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

    What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

    I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"
    If method, not that they are doing it. I got no problem with making all the bills you want to defend or repeal ACA. That is congress fulfilling it's role. But when you can't get it done, trying to hijack other things, things important to the well being of this country, that is not kosher. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is guaranteed to not serve any one in this country.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #5
    Guru
    sbrettt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Prospect park, PA
    Last Seen
    08-09-15 @ 07:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,724

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

    There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

    First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

    Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

    As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

    There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

    So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

    The same goes for many of these others.

    I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

    What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

    I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"
    I have to say, conservative politicians are a little better at representing their voters than Democrats are in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Should I be free to buy anthrax and a rocket launcher?
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    Is there a reason you shouldnt be free to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    Obamacare wants to put a chip inside people. There is a video of it on youtube.

  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The issue is exactly what best serves her constituency. Can she stop ACA? No. Are these tactics going to work? No. Do they have a potential to harm those people she does serve? Yes.
    Here's my issue.

    How do you know she does not honestly believe that IF the government shuts down that the Democrats will compromise and dealy the implimentation of ACA? And do you think it's not possible she feels a few days of the government shut down does not outweigh the potential benefits of delaying and potentially then having another chance to remove the ACA?

    You state the answers to your questions as if they're facts. They're not. Their opinion. Ones that someone else can have an entirely different view on.

    But when you can't get it done, trying to hijack other things, things important to the well being of this country, that is not kosher.
    Except many of these politicians have been arguing to try and stop ACA through any means necessary. Basically, now you're suggesting that they should be condemned for taking any means necessary. You say you agree to the first caveat, but here at the end you basically reveal the truth...that you feel that those willing to threaten and push ahead with a shut down in an effort to potentially get rid of/delay the ACA are doing so just to "spite" the Democrats. Based on that first premise...they're doing this action because they believe there is a chance of it actually working, and they feel the benefit of it working are worth the potential harm of it not/of getting to the point that it works.

  7. #7
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

    There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

    First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

    Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

    As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

    There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

    So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

    The same goes for many of these others.

    I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

    What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

    I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"
    I'd be completely behind them if they were trying to tweak the AHA. Or if they were getting "full-time" as relates to the AHA reduced to 20 hours per week. They could be doing many things that would make them look good. A futile attempt to repeal the law or indefinitely delay its implementation is swimming against the tide and a fool's errand.

    These politicians you talk about whose constituents so vigorously oppose the AHA think that way because they've been listening to the Republican mantra that the sky is going to fall. It's simply not true.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #8
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    The tea party Young Turks do exactly what they promised to do, which is a rarity, and I would have respect for them if I were opposed to their agenda. (Just like I have some respect for the likes of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, even though I don't care for their loony-left ideas at all).

    The question is, I guess: Are they being counterproductive - forcing things like this, at the first opportunity, against odds?

    Hard to say. The public opinion is fickle. Consequences of any particular action in politics are pretty much unpredictable.

    My experience in life so far suggests that second opportunities are extremely rare, and odds are always against you. Do what you can, as your conscience and promises you made dictate. Do it now.

  9. #9
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's my issue.

    How do you know she does not honestly believe that IF the government shuts down that the Democrats will compromise and dealy the implimentation of ACA? And do you think it's not possible she feels a few days of the government shut down does not outweigh the potential benefits of delaying and potentially then having another chance to remove the ACA?

    You state the answers to your questions as if they're facts. They're not. Their opinion. Ones that someone else can have an entirely different view on.
    They are very educated opinions. The odds that ACA will be defunded or repealed approach zero. The odds that the tactics being used will harm her constituency approach 100 %. And I do not see "well, she really believes something painfully stupid" as much of a defense.

    Except many of these politicians have been arguing to try and stop ACA through any means necessary. Basically, now you're suggesting that they should be condemned for taking any means necessary. You say you agree to the first caveat, but here at the end you basically reveal the truth...that you feel that those willing to threaten and push ahead with a shut down in an effort to potentially get rid of/delay the ACA are doing so just to "spite" the Democrats. Based on that first premise...they're doing this action because they believe there is a chance of it actually working, and they feel the benefit of it working are worth the potential harm of it not/of getting to the point that it works.
    You are misunderstanding what I am saying. The expression "cutting off her nose to spite her face" means to overreact in a destructive manner.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #10
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's my issue.

    How do you know she does not honestly believe that IF the government shuts down that the Democrats will compromise and dealy the implimentation of ACA? And do you think it's not possible she feels a few days of the government shut down does not outweigh the potential benefits of delaying and potentially then having another chance to remove the ACA?

    You state the answers to your questions as if they're facts. They're not. Their opinion. Ones that someone else can have an entirely different view on.
    I don't care whether or not a politician "honestly believes" that they are doing the right thing. I understand that there is always a variety of thought and positions about both policy and tactics but there's a limit to "benefit of the doubt" and the extremists are not covered by it. It takes too much of a disconnection with logic and reason to think that holding things like the govts' continued operation, and the debt limit could possibly work out well for the nation for me to endorse such actions as "right"




    Except many of these politicians have been arguing to try and stop ACA through any means necessary. Basically, now you're suggesting that they should be condemned for taking any means necessary. You say you agree to the first caveat, but here at the end you basically reveal the truth...that you feel that those willing to threaten and push ahead with a shut down in an effort to potentially get rid of/delay the ACA are doing so just to "spite" the Democrats. Based on that first premise...they're doing this action because they believe there is a chance of it actually working, and they feel the benefit of it working are worth the potential harm of it not/of getting to the point that it works.
    Redress' use of the saying that includes the word "spite" does not imply that republicans are motivated by spite. It's a figure of speech, and like every figure of speech it's not meant to be interpreted literally.

    And while some may believe this tactic will actually work I have no doubt that those people are deluded. For a politician to have such a distorted perception of a matter directly under their purview (ie politics) is at best such a sign of incompetence that I have no problem ridiculing them for taking such a position.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •