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

[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

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!

It's a symbiotic relationship. Again, look back to history. It's never one person. It can't be. It's one person who is enabled by enough people (who have their own personal agendas) to increase influence, and then gain and maintain power. One person can't do that alone.

 

[Correll]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

Good example. And I respectfully disagree.


I could really see, if it was me, saying, "not happening, if you don't like it, vote me out" in such a situation.


imo, the good judgement of the elite is supposed to operate as a brake on the passions of the masses, which could be whipped into a mob by events or demagogic leaders.

 

[Correll]

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.

But the three stikes law came about because the political elite failed to deal effectively with crime.


The political leaders failed first and then a grass roots response came.

 

[WTF19]

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.

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

 

[Correll]

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?

This is the reason for the public school system.. You need a literate, educated citizenry to have a democratic republic.. Otherwise, you may as well be a mob in Nigeria.

There are elements of mob rule now. When a politician listens to and acts for their base only, it becomes nothing more than the "tyranny of the majority". So each tribe either wins 100% or loses 100%. Back and forth, back and forth, with no real progress made, as the rest of the world passes us by.

A third option would be for "leaders" to innovate and create NEW ideas, but we're simply no longer capable of that. We don't even want to HEAR about it. That's not how America became great, that's for damn sure.

That is not an element of populism but of divisiveness.


For a number of reasons we have lost the ability to disagree reasonably. All disputes are bitter and matters of personal identity.


What unifies US now, to balance out or conflicting interests? Shared Faith? Patriotism?

 

[Correll]

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.

If you want a productive discussion, steer the examples towards non-controversial topics, like dog fighting.

 

[surada]

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.

Neither. Congress should legislate to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is in our best interests and pursue it as we see fit.

How would you apply that to seat belts or child labor or dumping chemicals in a river?

 

[Correll]

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!

It's a symbiotic relationship. Again, look back to history. It's never one person. It can't be. It's one person who is enabled by enough people (who have their own personal agendas) to increase influence, and then gain and maintain power. One person can't do that alone.

And hint of a godwin, and you are destroying your own thread. Why would you do that?

 

[surada]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

 

[Correll]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

 

[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.

Thinking this through a bit, I'd imagine there's going to be a difference between local politics, where they 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.

I dunno? I'm not any closer with local politicians than federal... If anything, I'm more concerned with national politics than local.... For me, "All politics is local" doesn't fit.

Right now in DC, its all about The Party.... Not the people, or what is in the best interest of all of their constituents.

Because the Rs and Ds are near evenly split, 1 seat can matter on who has control....they gotta march lock step, if they want their party to have control...power!!! ....the hell with we the people, or what is in all of our and country's best interest....Party over country has been winning....

So our reps don't do what constituents shout for, reps don't make decisions based on what is best for all and country nowadays, it's all about party, and power.

 

[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 they 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.

I dunno? I'm not any closer with local politicians than federal... If anything, I'm more concerned with national politics than local.... For me, "All politics is local" doesn't fit.

Right now in DC, its all about The Party.... Not the people, or what is in the best interest of all of their constituents.

Because the Rs and Ds are near evenly split, 1 seat can matter on who has control....they gotta march lock step, if they want their party to have control...power!!! ....the hell with we the people, or what is in all of our and country's best interest....Party over country has been winning....

So our reps don't do what constituents shout for, reps don't make decisions based on what is best for all and country nowadays, it's all about party, and power.

Yeah, agreed, that overrides even the question posed in the OP. That's the system under which we allow these people to operate. Unless and until we change that system, we're willingly allowing them to keep behaving like this.

 

[surada]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

I was responding to Mac 7's rosy picture.

"Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America"

 

[Shelzin]

Yeah, agreed, that overrides even the question posed in the OP. That's the system under which we allow these people to operate. Unless and until we change that system, we're willingly allowing them to keep behaving like this.

I agree. I don't know who runs the PRIVATE parties of the DNC and GOP... But it's not the people we elect. Going back to same 'ol same 'ol isn't appealing.

 

[Correll]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

I was responding to Mac 7's rosy picture.

"Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America"

This is the clean debate zone. The question can be discussed without specifics or it can be bogged down into another partisan mud throwing contest.

Ignore partisans filler and respond to actual points, and it could be possible to discuss the actual issue.

 

[surada]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

I was responding to Mac 7's rosy picture.

"Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America"

This is the clean debate zone. The question can be discussed without specifics or it can be bogged down into another partisan mud throwing contest.

Ignore partisans filler and respond to actual points, and it could be possible to discuss the actual issue.

He's citing Trump's trade deal with China as a good thing. Is that too specific? I think an intelligent leader of good character would not make off the cuff decisions based on hunches and a desire to be popular.

 

[Correll]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

I was responding to Mac 7's rosy picture.

"Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America"

This is the clean debate zone. The question can be discussed without specifics or it can be bogged down into another partisan mud throwing contest.

Ignore partisans filler and respond to actual points, and it could be possible to discuss the actual issue.

He's citing Trump's trade deal with China as a good thing. Is that too specific? I think an intelligent leader of good character would not make off the cuff decisions based on hunches and a desire to be popular.

Trump ran as a populism. I recall reading history about some old time populist who said something along the lines of, to paraphrase.


I am for silver backed money because the people are for it".

That is a vote for the idea that the politician should just do what his supporters want.


Do you agree with that point, or not? That is the actual relevant question. This question is not limited to Trump, unless the op was being dishonest and this was really just subtle flamebait.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

 

[surada]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

I was responding to Mac 7's rosy picture.

"Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America"

This is the clean debate zone. The question can be discussed without specifics or it can be bogged down into another partisan mud throwing contest.

Ignore partisans filler and respond to actual points, and it could be possible to discuss the actual issue.

He's citing Trump's trade deal with China as a good thing. Is that too specific? I think an intelligent leader of good character would not make off the cuff decisions based on hunches and a desire to be popular.

Trump ran as a populism. I recall reading history about some old time populist who said something along the lines of, to paraphrase.


I am for silver backed money because the people are for it".

That is a vote for the idea that the politician should just do what his supporters want.


Do you agree with that point, or not? That is the actual relevant question. This question is not limited to Trump, unless the op was being dishonest and this was really just subtle flamebait.

Representing the constituents in his or her state is certainly valid. Look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Strom Thurmond represented his constituents and as soon as it passed he hired black staffers. Strom knew that Jim Crowe was a economic albatross for the South.