• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

See Poll question at top of OP.


  • Total voters
    26
These flat-earthers must be made to understand Obama IS the President.. Again.
yer right the opposition party shouldn't oppose anything this regime does ever.
 
you 47%'ers are all going to end up on SSI, eating your dawg food with plastic sporks and paper plates
then end up in front of death panels getting denied any medical care?
 
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?"

Thing is, aside from the Amendments 3/4 of the Constitution is centered around procedural rules for the ways in with the three branches of government need to function.

I'm all for elected officials keeping their promises, but if we are even going to pretend to adhere to the Constitution, the shutdown in order to prevent/ defund an already passed law is illogical.
 
Have you watched how the current regime has flouted the rule of lawl?
How did you miss it?
 
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?"
Do you honestly believe that any of these politicians are acting in unison in the way that they are because they are honestly going after what their constituents want?

Outside of some partisan hacks there isnt really anyone saying 'the shutdown is a awesome idea!'. Its all just bad politics on all sides.
 
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 think Americans naturally want opposition to the parties that be. If one party is in power promoting their policy, then I want another party opposing it. This is how we arrive at common sense.

I don't support or oppose the Republican stance. I certainly don't condemn it. They should continue to support policies that they like. If Americans don't like it, they will vote accordingly.
 
no one is representing the tea party folks at all
taxation without representation
 
Obammer is a total socialist and should be hung from the yard arm and keel hauled arrr matey!
 
Because they never put it in practical terms. They tend to just run on platitudes and whatever makes the hamster hit the peddle, rather than say outright, "I'm going to vote to shutdown the federal government, leaving 800k people out of work and closing parks, blocking NIH grants for cancer research etc"
 
i understand a politician backing up what their voters want on anything ,, no problem no brainer.... but the u.s. still has the pay the bills that are in law or already agreed upon in the house, senate and signed by the president.. we always pay our bills no matter what and on time.... if you want to be the greatest most trusted nation in the business world you pay your dam bills.....the politicians can fight to get rid of obamacare or the citizens can vote enough people in to get rid of it... that is the only way to kill the aca...by the way,,, other countries our watching us and the one that dont like us are using what we are doing to ourseves as propoganda to their people to be against the usa....i cant stand simple minded people and the politicians that back them just to keep their jobs.....thats why i have the most respect for sen mccain he sees the big picture and it is way bigger than obama care.....and the tea party is nothing more than the southern confederats with a different name and they wish they could destroy our goverment as it is and start a new one ...better yet bring the slaves back too... people from the west and north east coast know exactly who you are ...please dont let the president turn this into a national security issue....listen to his key words hostage,,,,gun to head while negotiating hmmmmmmmmm a president in his last term can do anything he wants dont be stupid republicans
 
Last edited:
How sad that you folks believe the shutdown hokum has your life ground to a halt because of it.
Looks to me like they could stay shut down forever and just like the sequester it wouldn't matter a bit.

The ACA is here to stay along with all the other facets of the Obamanation
 
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?"

Yes and no. She has perfect right and responsibility to fight for her constituents, but this should be done not by shutting the government down, or by spreading misinformation, but by working to improve the legislation (though you might ask them if it's Obama care they object to instead of The ACA). ;)
 
People don't always (rarely) understand the consequences of what they're voting on. Some of this is unpredictable, but i highly doubt she ever said she'd vote to "shutdown" the govt and rationally and accurately explained what would follow.
 
After seeing my open enrollment for 2014 today I called all my state reps and told them it would be a cold day in hell before I would contribute or host meetings for them if they gave in on defunding ACA. I couldn't believe how bad it was until I saw it today. I almost said **** it and canceled all of it.
 
leaving 800k people out of work
out of a workforce of 154 million?
Obammers has put 11 million out of work Who the hell cares if them government parasites ever return to suckin' up tax dollars?
 
Back
Top Bottom