- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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?"
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?"
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?"
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
the Republican mantra that the sky is going to fall. It's simply not true.
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?
(SNIP)
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?"
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?"
and how many Republicans voted for socialized health care?every figure of speech it's not meant to be interpreted literally
Bush is a man of principle who makes mistakes for good reasons, Obama is a man totally lacking in principle who makes mistakes because he has no inner compass to guide him, whose only goals are personal and political.
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?
And that, IMO, is what Boehner is doing now.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?