I thought it was supposed to be noble when politicians did what they believed to be right instead of what may be reflected in the polls?
Oh puhleeze obama & peelosi are just assholes pushing the collectivist agenda if you can't get the fact it's what people are upset over then there is no hope in having rational dicussion with you tards. It's not the stain of their skin , it's the color of their poilitics.
I guess we could make a case for that if the politician had secret intelligence that was not publicly available and he believed that the population would support it if they had that information. However, you can't make the argument that this is what happened in this case - unless by "what the believed to be right" is code for "what they believe to be right for their political career". Dems who support this flouting of the American people should consider that they have created a political precedent that now allows the Republicans to do the same. Just imagine how much nauseating crap they will shove down our throats when their time comes.
Already been done. Look up the history of events leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The public was first "flouted", then bamboozled.
Leave the reps and dems out of it for a second and speak to the general case. You would support politicians voting their conscience against what the polls might reflect only if there was some secret information not reflected in those polls?
I doubt if any, but for a few, even bother to read the bill. 34 Dems held to a principle and voted NO. The rest, INCLUDING THAT TURD, STUPAK... voted the party line for personal greed.... "Non-representing, representatives", as Thomas Paine called them. They need to be kicked to the curb* for their selfishness... * They deserve MUCH worse.. just can't impose it and stay within the law..
Rightly or wrongly, the majority supported the invasion. Congress voted to go to war without the Speaker of the house having to threaten to break the kneecaps of any of his party members and plenty of Democrats voted for war. Was it a good idea? Did Bush lie (lying is as natural as breathing to politicians, so...)? These are good questions but not relevant to the point you're trying to make. For better or worse, we went to war against the vehement protests of a minority but with majority support. That's not what happened here. But of course, if you didn't like that decision, just wait what's coming! Plus, wars eventually end. This pain will only begin and intensify in a few years and never end. This is a disaster.
Zhivodka, I haven't given it that much thought and I don't have the energy to handle two diverse topics on one thread. If you want to PM me about this, fine. That said, I'm inclined to say "no". Representatives are meant to represent the wishes and will of their constituents, not themselves and that's what voters believe they're voting for. but, you know, that might be a moot point. Have you ever met a politician with conscience?
Oh, I don't think the 34 held to principle at all. That's not how these things usually work. Instead of discussing how to improve the bill, these asshats were behind closed doors discussing what will happen in the next election. Knowing that they can pass it without a single Republican, they decided who was so vulnerable in their district they had to vote "NO" or lose for sure and who could risk it. Stupak figured he could risk it. But, word on the Hill was the vulnerable Dems told Nancy they're a "no" unless she really needed their vote. Politicians don't know what "a principles" is. They probably think it's a sex toys. I'm helping as many republicans get elected this november as I can. Not because they're just so principled and awesome, but to effect gridlock. Imperfect, but all we've got. Divide them so they can't conquer us.