2 ms·
Having other priorities isn't a problem, meaning it's fine if they spend their time working on other issues. But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voti
by croon 8y ago
Having other priorities isn't a problem, meaning it's fine if they spend their time working on other issues.
But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voting, and at that point your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents. Unless you have an incredibly good reason not to. "Different priorities" isn't one, it's straight up misdirection.
- smsm42 8y ago> your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents Who said they don't? We just heard from one person so far, which disagreed with the elected representative's priorities. Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. Presenting this - completely routine and normal - policy disagreement as "straight up bond villain" implies that there is only one constituent that matters and only one order of priorities that is legitimate, and any disagreement is not just difference in opinion, but supreme villainy. By a weird coincidence it turns out the only legitimate priorities are exactly the ones of the author of the comment, what are the chances!
- croon 8y ago> Who said they don't? Polling says they don't. [1] > Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. That's not accurate. Since they are still elected, clearly enough people agree with enough of their priorities (or perceived priorities). That's not to say that they couldn't better represent their voters, when that representation is clear. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...