• 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!

Romney for President?

Really? Would you rather have lawyers or doctors writing laws about healthcare policies? Lawyers or ranchers writing laws about land management? Lawyers or former soldiers writing laws governing and providing for our military? The actual answer in each case, of course, is both. Lawyers bring experience with dealing with laws in practice, of course, but others bring experience in the actual fields those laws are supposed to regulate. You need both.
That is assuming those folks have the interests of all citizens at heart or whether they are looking out for their special interests.....and that is the biggest argument for those reps to be chosen by a popular vote rather than embedded power at the state legislative level.
 
A "leader" is not necessarily a political Elite.
LOL....by definition a leader in politics, such as the orange asshole, is "elite" in politics. Quite trying to change standard definitions.

a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence, members of the ruling elite
 

Romney is NOT a leader!
Trump, like Reagan inspired.
And so many hated them for their talent.

Moi



Stop 🇨🇦
 
That is assuming those folks have the interests of all citizens at heart or whether they are looking out for their special interests.....and that is the biggest argument for those reps to be chosen by a popular vote rather than embedded power at the state legislative level.

You really think that being elected rather than appointed makes you more likely to have the interests of all citizens at heart? Rather than the interests of those you can convince to vote for you, who cares about the rest? One advantage of having senators appointed is that we can get people who might be excellent lawmakers but suck at campaigning.
 
You really think that being elected rather than appointed makes you more likely to have the interests of all citizens at heart?
Yes
One advantage of having senators appointed is that we can get people who might be excellent lawmakers but suck at campaigning.
Again, they will more than likely be lawmakers with bias towards the powers that that put them in positions of power.

I really can't understand your blindness towards this simple concept.....unless you feel that the voters have as narrow of focus as those already in office. I think the general principle holds that the longer a person is in power the more focused their interests become, the more beholden they are to big contributors.
 
Again, they will more than likely be lawmakers with bias towards the powers that that put them in positions of power.

And that can include bias towards a minority of a majority of citizens.

I really can't understand your blindness towards this simple concept.....unless you feel that the voters have as narrow of focus as those already in office. I think the general principle holds that the longer a person is in power the more focused their interests become, the more beholden they are to big contributors.

I don't think it's so much that they become more beholden to big contributors, as that their name recognition makes them less beholden to their voters--I'm sure you've seen career politicians that are out-of-sync with their districts, but because they've been around awhile and have built up a rapport with their voters they are able to get away with votes that wouldn't be forgiven in a less well-established politician.

In the case of appointed senators, their "voters" would be the state legislatures, not "big contributors"--and can have the same issue with name recognition. And they can also be "elected"--just consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates, those were over who should be appointed senator, and the two were campaigning for control of the Illinois statehouse.
 
And that can include bias towards a minority of a majority of citizens.
I didn't say it could not, this is just simplistic contrarianism. The point remains, a population of voter more often than not will have fewer special interests that would dominate that group.
I don't think it's so much that they become more beholden to big contributors, as that their name recognition makes them less beholden to their voters--I'm sure you've seen career politicians that are out-of-sync with their districts, but because they've been around awhile and have built up a rapport with their voters they are able to get away with votes that wouldn't be forgiven in a less well-established politician.
You are contradicting yourself, if they have more "rapport" (a relationship characterized by agreement, mutual understanding, or empathy) with their voters, they won't be less likely to vote against them.
In the case of appointed senators, their "voters" would be the state legislatures, not "big contributors"--and can have the same issue with name recognition. And they can also be "elected"--just consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates, those were over who should be appointed senator, and the two were campaigning for control of the Illinois statehouse.
This name recognition is beyond the initial appointment, you are tangent-ing off of the original argument of who holds greater influence on a rep.
 
I didn't say it could not, this is just simplistic contrarianism. The point remains, a population of voter more often than not will have fewer special interests that would dominate that group.

I have to disagree, the People are as corruptible--and corrupting--as "special interests." In fact, they often are the special interests. The Left often rants about the "pernicious influence" of the NRA, but that organization would be nothing without its millions of supporters--if the New York State DA's little crusade to shut down the NRA actually succeeded, in a few years there'd be a shiny new organization with exactly the same philosophy, just as many supporters, and just as much influence. You can say the same thing about the Sierra Club, for example, or any number of other lobbying organizations devoted to particular causes.

You are contradicting yourself, if they have more "rapport" (a relationship characterized by agreement, mutual understanding, or empathy) with their voters, they won't be less likely to vote against them.

"Rapport" was perhaps the wrong word. "Affection" might have been better--they've known the politician for years and like them, so they cut them some slack. That's why sometimes a seat that's ranked Safe for one party or another might become a Toss-up when the lifelong politician holding the seat finally retires. Sure, it might be because the party's new standard bearer can't hack it, but it can also be because the views of the district have shifted and now that shift can be more easily expressed in the voting booth. For that matter, that tends to explain how Romney got elected to the Senate in the first place. He's really a bit too moderate for Utah, but got elected anyway.

This name recognition is beyond the initial appointment, you are tangent-ing off of the original argument of who holds greater influence on a rep.

Perhaps, but still a point that it tends to work the same way.
 
I don't think it's so much that they become more beholden to big contributors, as that their name recognition makes them less beholden to their voters--I'm sure you've seen career politicians that are out-of-sync with their districts, but because they've been around awhile and have built up a rapport with their voters they are able to get away with votes that wouldn't be forgiven in a less well-established politician.

In the case of appointed senators, their "voters" would be the state legislatures, not "big contributors"--and can have the same issue with name recognition. And they can also be "elected"--just consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates, those were over who should be appointed senator, and the two were campaigning for control of the Illinois statehouse.

Well I agree with that. There are other factors though: voters seem to like that it's their representative who gets in the news (House or Senate leader particularly), and also pork barelling. The higher ranking a politician is, the more pork for their district/state.

There should be a Pork Allowance! Every member would get a certain amount, to be spent on bridges and stadiums and all that hoopla.
 
Well I agree with that. There are other factors though: voters seem to like that it's their representative who gets in the news (House or Senate leader particularly), and also pork barelling. The higher ranking a politician is, the more pork for their district/state.

Yup, see my point above about voters being as corruptible--and corrupting--and any "special interest. Can't say I agree about an allowance, I'd rather just cut taxes. Though a set allowance would mean those funds aren't available to try to bribe legislators to support bills they otherwise would oppose.... :unsure:
 
Romney pissed off too many trump supporters.
Your2024 Republican candidate is Chris Christie.
Not my first choice, but he has the best chance of making it thru the minefield.
 
Back
Top Bottom