Congressional approval rating lower than Bush's - Page 3

sleepyjeff · 07-14-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

My problem is with those who say we are only a republic. (Yes, they are out there. Believe me, I know.)

Well, on a national level we don't vote for anything(not even the President) directly....so I suppose they may have an argument(although I am not taking it up here....just saying I can see what they mean) in that regard.

JWBear · 07-14-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Well, on a national level we don't vote for anything(not even the President) directly....so I suppose they may have an argument(although I am not taking it up here....just saying I can see what they mean) in that regard.

We directly elect our representatives to the federal government. Our votes for President tell our state's Electors how to vote (at least in theory). I'd call this democracy at work.

sleepyjeff · 07-14-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

We directly elect our representatives to the federal government. Our votes for President tell our state's Electors how to vote (at least in theory). I'd call this democracy at work.

Quite true....what I meant to say is that we don't decide, directly, any of the laws we live by, or how much we pay in taxes, or where our money gets spent, etc.

scaeagles · 07-14-2007, 08:15 PM

Well, why it isn't a big deal, I don't think I've ever started a post with "WRONG!". I do, of course, point out what I disagree with - as is the nature of discussion.

wendybeth · 07-14-2007, 08:48 PM

Well, if you had posted that in response to my comments about an elected representative, I must say I would have responded in a similar manner. JW was right, your statement as it stood was wrong. These sorts of things strike a nerve in people, and with all the merde we have been subjected to since this whole strange McCarthy-like era began I expect more and more people are going to start speaking out when these quaint little hate-radio ideas are espoused. (Not saying you were intentionally doing so, but it definitely smelled like Rush for a few minutes in here). You made a strong (and somewhat cynical) statement kind of blowing off ABG's post regarding her own representative's response to her concerns and JW provided information that pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement.

Have I mentioned our air conditioner is still broken and it's 95 degrees in our house? I think I need one of these:

scaeagles · 07-14-2007, 09:13 PM

If you hadn't gone on that cruise you'd be able to afford a new AC.

But back on topic.....

How can I expect my elected representative to have the time to give a rip about what I think? Seriously. There are about 300,000,000 people in the US, and 435 representatives, or about 690,000 people per representative. How is it possible to even begin to hear all of the opinions of constituents? How is it possible to respond to letter without it being a form letter? I think there is an unrealistic idea of what a representative can do.

So I make no apologies for not being sympathetic regarding an unresponsive representative. It isn't possible to respond to everyone, or even have a staffer do so. We elect officials and sometimes those officials have vastly differing points of view than we do and we have to live with it.

wendybeth · 07-14-2007, 09:20 PM

I know- graft and corruption can be soooo time consuming.

wendybeth · 07-14-2007, 10:04 PM

Oh, and I am going to post from the ship, just to torment you.

innerSpaceman · 07-14-2007, 10:11 PM

really, scaeagles, your last post seemed almost designed to invite the unpleasant notion - borne out by reality - that our representatives have only the wherewithal to respond to the constituencies who finance their re-election campaigns, rather than those who actually re-elect them.

scaeagles · 07-15-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

really, scaeagles, your last post seemed almost designed to invite the unpleasant notion - borne out by reality - that our representatives have only the wherewithal to respond to the constituencies who finance their re-election campaigns, rather than those who actually re-elect them.

Such is politics.

This is why I don't understand why there are restircitions (well, actually I do understand, but it irritates me) on PACs and various special interest groups in how they can lobby and spend money, etc. The only chance that I have an individual is join with other like minded individuals to combine our resouirces to get noticed.

I have often believed that corporations contribute to campaigns - and typically they donate to both sides of the aisle - as something like protection money.

07-14-2007, 08:15 PM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Well, why it isn't a big deal, I don't think I've ever started a post with "WRONG!". I do, of course, point out what I disagree with - as is the nature of discussion.
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 08:48 PM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Well, if you had posted that in response to my comments about an elected representative, I must say I would have responded in a similar manner. JW was right, your statement as it stood was wrong. These sorts of things strike a nerve in people, and with all the merde we have been subjected to since this whole strange McCarthy-like era began I expect more and more people are going to start speaking out when these quaint little hate-radio ideas are espoused. (Not saying you were intentionally doing so, but it definitely smelled like Rush for a few minutes in here). You made a strong (and somewhat cynical) statement kind of blowing off ABG's post regarding her own representative's response to her concerns and JW provided information that pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement. Have I mentioned our air conditioner is still broken and it's 95 degrees in our house? I think I need one of these: __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 09:13 PM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	If you hadn't gone on that cruise you'd be able to afford a new AC. But back on topic..... How can I expect my elected representative to have the time to give a rip about what I think? Seriously. There are about 300,000,000 people in the US, and 435 representatives, or about 690,000 people per representative. How is it possible to even begin to hear all of the opinions of constituents? How is it possible to respond to letter without it being a form letter? I think there is an unrealistic idea of what a representative can do. So I make no apologies for not being sympathetic regarding an unresponsive representative. It isn't possible to respond to everyone, or even have a staffer do so. We elect officials and sometimes those officials have vastly differing points of view than we do and we have to live with it.
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 09:20 PM	#7
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I know- graft and corruption can be soooo time consuming. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 10:04 PM	#8
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Oh, and I am going to post from the ship, just to torment you. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 10:11 PM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	really, scaeagles, your last post seemed almost designed to invite the unpleasant notion - borne out by reality - that our representatives have only the wherewithal to respond to the constituencies who finance their re-election campaigns, rather than those who actually re-elect them.
	Submit to Quotes