CDZ The WILL of the people, or the BEST INTERESTS of the people?

[Shelzin]

Agreed. Seems to me that a "representative" is a person I vote for because I trust their judgement -- especially because they're going to have access to information that I don't -- to act on their particular set of principles.

I'm with you ... Kind of. My "representative" is the person I vote for because they'll tell me what I need to know in order to make a decision for myself. Educate... Not dictate.

If a "representative" doesn't have the particular set of principles that includes justifying their actions to the people they represent... I'd argue they aren't representing a free country in any meaningful fashion, and the people who support them are just willing surfs.

In other words, if a person I trust has better information that I have, I'll defer to them. I'm trusting them to do the right thing with what they have.

If they can't or don't trust me with "better information", by default I can't trust them. ( Read the whole post before jumping on this, you know who you are )

Trusting someone who doesn't trust you... I just... Can't wrap my brain around that... That only works if they believe I'm impaired in some way... By age, intelligence, or experience... It makes sense that you wouldn't trust a child, or someone with Alzheimer's to do all kinds of things.

By all means... Don't tell me the battle plans of an upcoming navel battle... I wouldn't be much help, and putting that out in the open is just stupid. But I believe they SHOULD tell me why the battle needs to be fought. They need to convince me, thus the populous, it's worth it.

 

[Crepitus]

Right and wrong are not absolutes. They can change with the laws.

Right and Wrong have nothing to do with human law. They were determined millennia ago when humanitywas created.

No. Not even remotely true.

 

[Anathema]

No. Not even remotely true.

We’ll see. My Soul is ready to be Judged. Is yours?

 

[Crepitus]

No. Not even remotely true.

We’ll see. My Soul is ready to be Judged. Is yours?

We'll see what? What you stated is patently false. Right and wrong change by the society. Look at the aztecs, to them it was not just right but devine to sacrifice humans. Here and now it isn't, but it was there and then.

 

[Anathema]

We'll see what? What you stated is patently false. Right and wrong change by the society. Look at the aztecs, to them it was not just right but devine to sacrifice humans. Here and now it isn't, but it was there and then.

Right and Wrong do not change. Societal acceptance of Right and Wrong may vary, but the concepts themselves are immutable.

We’ll see how your Soul gets Judged at the end of your life. That’s what I was referring to.

 

[freyasman]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

Umm..... no he wasn't.

 

[Crepitus]

We'll see what? What you stated is patently false. Right and wrong change by the society. Look at the aztecs, to them it was not just right but devine to sacrifice humans. Here and now it isn't, but it was there and then.

Right and Wrong do not change. Societal acceptance of Right and Wrong may vary, but the concepts themselves are immutable.

We’ll see how your Soul gets Judged at the end of your life. That’s what I was referring to.

Right and wrong change at the whims of man minute by minute.

Better get used to it.

I'm just gonna let the religious claptrap slide, don't push it.

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it was written for a reason, it's meaning doesn't change with time.

Actually this has been repeatedly proven wrong. The meanings within the constitution change with time, or with acts of congress. The definition of "the people" has changed several times, both by amending the constitution, and by passing legislation.

What you say is literally impossible, no entity created by the Constitution has the authority to alter or change it in any way. To nullify the document in any way would nullify their very existence. All actions taken by any branch of the federal government must support the very text and intent of the Constitution as written and intended, or that action has no validity under the Constitution.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Without Wickard, there would be no federal laws against drugs. So states would be entirely in charge of determining its legality.

You are against Wickard, but you're for federal drug laws. which is a contradiction in reality.

Wickard had nothing to do with drugs, but grain grown and used on the same farm. It never entered into commerce. Scalia wrote a similar opinion on marijuana, where marijuana was being grown for personal use and never entered into commerce. I said that was a bad decision as well. But that wouldn't apply to State run cartels.

What you missed is that Scalia based his marijuana decision on Wickard. Without Wickard, Scalia would have had no foundation for his decision.

I didn't miss a thing, the court had the opportunity to right a previous unconstitutional decision and didn't do it. Not a hard concept to understand.

.

 

[Boomer61]

Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:

Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.

So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?

My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?

The is supposed to be the latter with the incorporation of the former, you vote the person in that you believe best represents the will of their constituents and trust he will act in their best interest in accordance with their will. That's the pipedream that is rarely reality.

 

[Boomer61]

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

No one had to threaten trump to do the right thing

he was in touch with the voters from the day he came down the escalator

but unlike biden or hillary, pelosi or schumer, trump is not a career washington swamp rat

stop voting for lifelong swamp creatures and you wont have to fret so much about the decisions they make

This is why you need literate voters and a president who is educated rather than dumb as a stump. We don't need an ignorant demagogue who can whip up the mob with lies and jingles. That's how Germany got Hitler.

Funny you mention Germany and Hitler, there are HUGE similarities to what Hitler did and what is currently being forced through a democratic party controlled congress right now as well as the so called 'woke' mob.

 

[Boomer61]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

A problem is now that we're getting reactionaries voted into office, and those who can be pragmatic are getting the hell out. All that does is make things worse.

I think it's funny that you point out the 'storming' of the capital but totally disregard the 100s of Millions $$$ in damages the leftist 'mostly non violent protests' (read that as RIOTS) and the more than 20 deaths they caused. The capital riot was bad but not a drop in the bucket compared to the damage done in any SINGLE city where the leftists protested. Hell they have had nightly riots in Portland for 10 months and THE DAY AFTER the fence was taken down in front of the federal courthouse they smashed windows and set it on fire again (Mar 2021). The only reactionaries voted into office are the progressives that want to disregard the constitution and remake the USA as a socialist nation.

 

[Mac1958]

Agreed. Seems to me that a "representative" is a person I vote for because I trust their judgement -- especially because they're going to have access to information that I don't -- to act on their particular set of principles.

I'm with you ... Kind of. My "representative" is the person I vote for because they'll tell me what I need to know in order to make a decision for myself. Educate... Not dictate.

If a "representative" doesn't have the particular set of principles that includes justifying their actions to the people they represent... I'd argue they aren't representing a free country in any meaningful fashion, and the people who support them are just willing surfs.

In other words, if a person I trust has better information that I have, I'll defer to them. I'm trusting them to do the right thing with what they have.

If they can't or don't trust me with "better information", by default I can't trust them. ( Read the whole post before jumping on this, you know who you are )

Trusting someone who doesn't trust you... I just... Can't wrap my brain around that... That only works if they believe I'm impaired in some way... By age, intelligence, or experience... It makes sense that you wouldn't trust a child, or someone with Alzheimer's to do all kinds of things.

By all means... Don't tell me the battle plans of an upcoming navel battle... I wouldn't be much help, and putting that out in the open is just stupid. But I believe they SHOULD tell me why the battle needs to be fought. They need to convince me, thus the populous, it's worth it.

Well, "trust" is relative. My general opinion of any politician is not particularly high. That includes politicians I know personally, even at a local level. So if a politician for whom I have comparative "trust" lets me down, I'm not exactly shocked. It just confirms my overall opinion of them. My expectations for them are never high.

 

[Mac1958]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

A problem is now that we're getting reactionaries voted into office, and those who can be pragmatic are getting the hell out. All that does is make things worse.

I think it's funny that you point out the 'storming' of the capital but totally disregard the 100s of Millions $$$ in damages the leftist 'mostly non violent protests' (read that as RIOTS) and the more than 20 deaths they caused. The capital riot was bad but not a drop in the bucket compared to the damage done in any SINGLE city where the leftists protested. Hell they have had nightly riots in Portland for 10 months and THE DAY AFTER the fence was taken down in front of the federal courthouse they smashed windows and set it on fire again (Mar 2021). The only reactionaries voted into office are the progressives that want to disregard the constitution and remake the USA as a socialist nation.

I know you folks have to equate the two to protect Trump.

What happened at the capitol was historic. What happened on the streets of a few cities was not.

I'm not trying to convince someone like you of anything.

 

[Mac1958]

Neither. They should be legislating based on Right and Wrong under the limitations provided by the Governing documents of the nation/state/locality they are governing.

Who is to decide what is Right and Wrong? Who has power like that as an arbiter?

 

[Care4all]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

you tell them the same thing---the communist demonRATS stoled the corrupted election. stuffing the fraudulant dominion voting machines, caught on film, after sending the counters home for the night. something that has never happened. go figure, and then the demonRATS jump right into the communists bed

You've been brainwashed. You are not dumb, or stupid, or an idiot for believing the Big Lie that the election was stolen, but YOU HAVE BEEN unwittingly Brainwashed.

Your story about ballot stuffing has been proven not to be true.

 

[Mac1958]

You've been brainwashed. You are not dumb, or stupid, or an idiot for believing the Big Lie that the election was stolen, but YOU HAVE BEEN unwittingly Brainwashed.

And that's an important point. Being consumed by a fraudulent ideology (whatever it is) isn't a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I've always looked at it as more of an affliction. A perfectly intelligent person can be infected. We've seen this, many times, throughout history.

This is why I find all this stuff so fascinating from a psychological / sociological / anthropological perspective. You just never know when someone will go down the rabbit hole. Including yourself, I guess

 

[Care4all]

You vote a representative in to office to make the best decisions for the country and district they represent. Constituents within the district vary in wants and needs...the Rep's job is to discern what is best for all...in the district.... Not just the constituents that voted for them or donated to them or who screams the loudest....imo. They get the big bucks, to make big decisions... not to be a puppet....again, imo.

 

[Mac1958]

You vote a representative in to office to make the best decisions for the country and district they represent. Constituents within the district vary in wants and needs...the Rep's job is to discern what is best for all...in the district.... Not just the constituents that voted for them or donated to them or who screams the loudest....imo. They get the big bucks, to make big decisions... not to be a puppet....again, imo.

Thinking this through a bit, I'd imagine there's going to be a difference between local politics, where your constituents are literally in your face, and national politics, where the politician is generally detached and influenced by outside forces.

I don't remember a mayor in a town I lived in being a hardcore nutter. I can think of a few council people, I guess, but they didn't last long.

So maybe the further a politician is detached from their constituents the more divisive this can be.

 

[Care4all]

You've been brainwashed. You are not dumb, or stupid, or an idiot for believing the Big Lie that the election was stolen, but YOU HAVE BEEN unwittingly Brainwashed.

And that's an important point. Being consumed by a fraudulent ideology (whatever it is) isn't a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I've always looked at it as more of an affliction. A perfectly intelligent person can be infected. We've seen this, many times, throughout history.

This is why I find all this stuff so fascinating from a psychological / sociological / anthropological perspective. You just never know when someone will go down the rabbit hole. Including yourself, I guess

The Con artist(s) is the bad guy, not those who were conned... They are the victims.

It's the only way I can deal with this madness, of it all!