Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Racehorse on August 19, 2009, 12:36:17 AM
-
Interesting video of Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY). I think the only thing that differentiates this guy from Obama and most other politicians is that he's honest about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWmVBadWvU
I think far too many politicians on both sides of the aisle believe they know better than their constituents and aren't worried about what the people in their districts think. I'm hopeful that the way some of the town hall meetings have been going is starting to wake some of them up and make them fear for their jobs.
-
I just looked up his congressional district map.
http://massa.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=27§iontree=27
He's not exaggerating when he said in the video "my district is one of the most right-wing in the united states". I live just outside his district to the left of the Route 20 sign.
-
Owned.
-
I think far too many politicians on both sides of the aisle believe they know better than their constituents and aren't worried about what the people in their districts think.
You mean they've come to regard themselves as our rulers rather than our representatives?
-
You mean they've come to regard themselves as our rulers rather than our representatives?
Bingo. I think Massa, at least, will be getting a reality check in the next election, based on the demographics of his district. I can only hope the same thing happens in a lot of other districts, both republican and democrat.
-
I'm not familiar with that area, but looking at the map, I don't see anything that stands out as a big city or well known liberal enclave. How did a guy like that get in office in a strongly conservative district?
-
My understanding is that he rode in on the coattails of Obama-mania in a fairly close victory. But I'm not all that familiar with it.
-
Probably by misrepresenting himself, I'm wagering, to a gullible electorate. Or maybe he just has the look that someone wants to know better...
-
You mean they've come to regard themselves as our rulers rather than our representatives?
Then again, there ARE situations where a representative needs to vote his conscience, even if the majority oppose it. Not this situation, of course.
-
Interesting video of Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY).
Ironic name for the person who wants to rule us, isn't it?..... ;/
-
Then again, there ARE situations where a representative needs to vote his conscience, even if the majority oppose it. Not this situation, of course.
And if a representative's conscience tells him to vote against the wishes of his constituency, he has to be voted out.
-
And if a representative's conscience tells him to vote against the wishes of his constituency, he has to be voted out.
He at least should be prepared to live with the consequences, yeah.
-
I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district.
In the next election, if the Republican candidate doesn't make Massa's statement a centerpiece of his campaign ads . . . he'll show that the GOP really deserves their nickname of "The Stupid Party."
-
We have two problems here. One is the long-building issue of pols not listening to the people. That one has reached the flashpoint.
But the second--which is not the issue with the town hall meetings--lies in the suffrage process itself. We have turned the voting process into a travesty in the last forty years.
I don't think these two problems are unrelated.
-
Last 40 years? I was unaware any changes had taken place since the 60's, barring letting 18 y/o's vote.
I'll ask you again what specific measures you'd take to fix these problems you see with universal suffrage.
-
I'll ask you again what specific measures you'd take to fix these problems you see with universal suffrage.
Well, the question wasn't directed to me, but I'll weigh in: people who don't pay income tax shouldn't have a say in how my tax money is spent, nor should they have a voice in choosing those who make the decisions. Too many of these believe they have a right to the fruits of my labor - and vote accordingly.
-
But you can vote for fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes to molest them? Prohibit their favored activities? Sweet.
-
Well, the question wasn't directed to me, but I'll weigh in: people who don't pay income tax shouldn't have a say in how my tax money is spent, nor should they have a voice in choosing those who make the decisions. Too many of these believe they have a right to the fruits of my labor - and vote accordingly.
Ain't that the truth.
-
Well, the question wasn't directed to me, but I'll weigh in: people who don't pay income tax shouldn't have a say in how my tax money is spent, nor should they have a voice in choosing those who make the decisions. Too many of these believe they have a right to the fruits of my labor - and vote accordingly.
I agree on this. The founding fathers decided on voting standards for a reason. Those who participated, invested, contributed, and had a stake in the nations welfare got to vote, and only they got to vote.
Now, I am not advocating the standard they used. Woman, all races, land ownership or otherwise, etc. Morality has evolved and so has society.
My basic standard is that of a productive member of society, the specifics of which can be debated all year long. But I think some basics are employed, student, retired, not unemployed for more then a certain period. If your spouse works and you stay at home as a homemaker, that's fine. In short, you need to be a productive member of society and not a leach. Those on welfare or living on government handouts should not be able to vote on a bigger handout at the expense of the productive members of society.
You should also need a basic understanding of the structure of our government and how it works. If you can't give me a basic explanation of the make up of congress, you shouldn't get to vote. If you can't name the branches of government and give a basic explanation of their roles, you shouldn't get to vote. I don't see how someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of a system can ever hope to make an informed decision on who to vote into that system.
-
I agree on this. The founding fathers decided on voting standards for a reason. Those who participated, invested, contributed, and had a stake in the nations welfare got to vote, and only they got to vote.
That's just not true. Every colony had different standards. Not all of them required property or taxation. Such requirements (where they existed) were not always strictly enforced, especially as the Revolution got underway. They were lowered or abolished within a decade or two, if I remember right.
-
That's just not true. Every colony had different standards. Not all of them required property or taxation. Such requirements (where they existed) were not always strictly enforced, especially as the Revolution got underway. They were lowered or abolished within a decade or two, if I remember right.
I never stated the standard was universal throughout the colonies, I stated standards existed and should continue to do so.
We've gotten to the point where the only standard is breathing, let alone proving eligibility with identification.
-
I never stated the standard was universal throughout the colonies, I stated standards existed and should continue to do so.
Many Founders believed that the franchise should be universal to all adult Freemen. It is a falsehood to point to the Founding Fathers as a united body of men. They were not such.
-
Lupinus, I see what you're saying, but the statement I quoted is still incorrect. The founding fathers did away with the sort of standards you mentioned. You seemed to imply that they instituted them.
The founding fathers decided on voting standards for a reason. Those who participated, invested, contributed, and had a stake in the nations welfare got to vote, and only they got to vote.
-
Many Founders believed that the franchise should be universal to all adult Freemen. It is a falsehood to point to the Founding Fathers as a united body of men. They were not such.
And we can argue the same about everything they finally settled on. Different people within a group will always have different ideas.
-
And we can argue the same about everything they finally settled on. Different people within a group will always have different ideas.
And they didn't "settle" on a unified standard for the suffrage. Certainly not in the Constitution.
-
And they didn't "settle" on a unified standard for the suffrage. Certainly not in the Constitution.
Again, I never once said it was universal or unified. I never gave specific "white land owning males" type examples either. I stated there were standards. Do I agree some of them were the best standards? No, I do not.
Do I agree with the principle there should be standards in who is allowed to vote? Absolutely.
-
But you can vote for fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes to molest them?
People on the dole - collecting welfare, food stamps, AFDC, etc. - are "paying" these taxes with what was MY money, before .gov took it! :mad:
-
People on the dole - collecting welfare, food stamps, AFDC, etc. - are "paying" these taxes with what was MY money, before .gov took it! :mad:
What about the people who simply earn below the tax treshold? My earnings are below the tax treshold now, should I not get a vote?
-
What about the people who simply earn below the tax treshold? My earnings are below the tax treshold now, should I not get a vote?
If you don't pay taxes, sure, that's fine and dandy. But if your means of support is an unearned handout, then no way in hell.
-
"We've gotten to the point where the only standard is breathing, let alone proving eligibility with identification"
In Chicago they don't even have that standard! =D
-
"We've gotten to the point where the only standard is breathing, let alone proving eligibility with identification"
In Chicago they don't even have that standard! =D
You've got a point there....