Duty of a Congressman - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 11-14-2005, 06:39 AM

Do you think it is the duty of a congressman to vote for what he feels is the right way to vote or to vote for the way his constituents want him to vote?

djtestudo · 11-14-2005, 07:04 AM

I think that depends. In most cases, at least in theory, voting his belief would already be voting the constituents' belief, since that is why he was elected.

However, there are other cases (base closings, spending cuts, etc.) where the question becomes much harder to answer.

alansmithee · 11-14-2005, 07:11 AM

I think that a congressman should vote how they feel to be right. We have a representative gov't in the US for a reason. For that to work properly, congressmen have to vote for what's best for their state/country and not what will get them reelected.

politicophile · 11-14-2005, 07:53 AM

In theory, but only in theory, a Congressman is elected because the people trust him/her to do the right thing. In this case, it would make sense for the Congressman to vote in the manner they thought proper. In the real world, of course, constituents get angry when their representatives vote otherwise than they would have. Compounding the difficulty is the fact that gauging public opinion through widespread polls is expensive and can only be conducted on the most important issues. Thus, sometimes representatives don't even have the option of following pubic opinion.

The problem is this: the people trust the Congressman to vote his/her conscience if and only if the Congressman votes the interest of the constituency. Ah, paradoxes...

powerclown · 11-14-2005, 08:11 AM

I think you are referring to the ongoing conversation regarding whether pandering and aquiescence should absolve the Democrats for Regime Change (DRC), from authorizing war...but why should it? Isn't the basis of the Left's criticism of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq that the American people were deceived?

Maybe they've only been listening to one side of the argument.

Here's another:

Who is Lying About Iraq?

Quote:

The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

...

Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff had this to say (and he was praised by the Left for attacking the war not long ago):

Quote:

I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

People say, well, INR [the State Department] dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

As for the aluminum tubes:

Quote:

The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?

Kenneth Pollack, who served on the National Security Council under Clinton, said this about a 2002 meeting:

Quote:

I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

And of course, the charge of manipulation of intelligence has already been investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee (which has its own independent intelligence gathering), and found to be not true. The Robb-Silverman investigation found the same thing. NO ONE has ever found evidence that the Bush administration in any way attempted to influence the intelligence community or its conclusions.

You should read the whole article.

filtherton · 11-14-2005, 08:43 AM

Are you going to turn every thread in politics into something about how the democrats thought saddam had wmd? Because i think we get the point.

powerclown · 11-14-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Are you going to turn every thread in politics into something about how the democrats thought saddam had wmd? Because i think we get the point.

Dude, I'm not the one starting 10 different threads on the same exact subject.
Do you wish to engage the point, or have the Democrats left you speechless too?

flstf · 11-14-2005, 10:40 AM

In a perfect world our polititians would be people who serve for a few years, putting their private lives and occupations on hold, for the betterment of their fellow citizens. In theory this would attract the best and the brightest and they should be leaders and vote what they think is best for us all.

In the real world, only those with connections and access to the two major parties have any chance of winning. This does not attract many people with integrity or leadership qualities as evidenced by the current crop of weak statesmen/women that are in power.

filtherton · 11-14-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Dude, I'm not the one starting 10 different threads on the same exact subject.
Do you wish to engage the point, or have the Democrats left you speechless too?

Do you wish to engage the point? Did you read the original post? I reread yours and honestly couldn't find a link between the original post and your host-esque deluge of information. Information which is completely tangential to the original post.

I'll bite though. How does this argument usually go? Something like: "It is obvious that george bush likes raping puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens while bathing in the blood of american soldiers, he also participates in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal selling of the world's petroleum reserves to aliens." Right? Is that what you expected? The standard response is usually something along the lines of, "Well, teddy kennedy and bill clinton also expressed the urge to rape puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens all while bathing in the blood of american soldiers and participating in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal sale of the world's petroleum supply to aliens so nannananna booboo." That's just paraphrasing though.

What do you think about the duty of a congressperson who isn't involved in raping puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens while bathing in the blood of american soldiers, and participating in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal selling of the world's petroleum reserves to aliens?

I think that a congressperson generally has to walk a fine line, balancing the whims of the easily persuaded sheeplike majority of their constituents with the solutions that actually might solve a problem or two.

Willravel · 11-14-2005, 02:08 PM

I would hope that congressman would have been elected by telling the truth and having support from those who agree. If this were the case, the way the congressman feels is the way his voters feel. If this isn't the case, then either the voters made a mistake, or the congressman made a mistake.

Powerclown, please try to control yourself. This thread is a general thread about political theory, it is not necessarily about any real world happenings. Did you notice in my above statement that I didn't mention Bush or Republicans or conservatives or 911? No one elses did either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

"It is obvious that george bush likes raping puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens while bathing in the blood of american soldiers, he also participates in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal selling of the world's petroleum reserves to aliens."

Hahahaha!! Now that's politics. Well done.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-14-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

In a perfect world our polititians would be people who serve for a few years, putting their private lives and occupations on hold, for the betterment of their fellow citizens. In theory this would attract the best and the brightest and they should be leaders and vote what they think is best for us all.

In the real world, only those with connections and access to the two major parties have any chance of winning. This does not attract many people with integrity or leadership qualities as evidenced by the current crop of weak statesmen/women that are in power.

Career politicians r teh suk.

DJtestudo hit the original question on the head, as a congressperson you tend to get elected on a platform whether it is strictly your own, or the party line.

powerclown · 11-14-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

What do you think about the duty of a congressperson who isn't involved in raping puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens while bathing in the blood of american soldiers, and participating in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal selling of the world's petroleum reserves to aliens?

Yes, a wonderful world we live in, isn't it? It must be an especially harsh existence for the astute, modern Pacifist.

If I'm forced to choose a side in a War not of my own making, I wish to be on the winning side, which is why I favor The West.

In my opinion, the duty of my congressman - in matters relating to foreign policy and national security post 9/11 - should be to support/reject legislation integral to the well-being of the country. Specifically, I am for further coordinating our intelligence gathering services, and wish for my representatives in Congress to diligently address the matter, instead of running for the nearest political cover by philosophically morphing into something else when the going gets tough.

I probably ask for the impossible, but the alternative is fascism/communism, and communism is, of course, perfect for preprogrammed ants - but not human beings.

Ustwo · 11-14-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I probably ask for the impossible, but the alternative is fascism/communism, and communism is, of course, perfect for preprogrammed ants - but not human beings.

Whats funny to me as a biologist is that while everyone, including myself, have used that communism works for a hive mentality type of argument, its not even perfect for ants. Because of its rigid nature, hives are very slow to adapt to new threats. There are insects who mimic the signals that ants use to communicate, and then they feed off the hives food supplies or the ants themselves. Being they are programmed for one kind of response, the ants are helpless.

powerclown · 11-14-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Whats funny to me as a biologist is that while everyone, including myself, have used that communism works for a hive mentality type of argument, its not even perfect for ants. Because of its rigid nature, hives are very slow to adapt to new threats. There are insects who mimic the signals that ants use to communicate, and then they feed off the hives food supplies or the ants themselves. Being they are programmed for one kind of response, the ants are helpless.

Dear Dr. Ustwo,

I must therefore ask:

In the best of all possible worlds, would you rather be an ant, or a Communist?

Jinn · 11-14-2005, 06:42 PM

--- and there's a deeeeeeraaailllllllllll by powerclown, he nets ... negative ONE MEEEELION POINTS.

I believe that I elect a representative to represent MY (and obviously my fellow consituents) beliefs, not so he or she can present their own agenda. If I wanted an agenda, I'd run myself. I want them to represent those who elected them, and nothing more.

Elphaba · 11-14-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

--- and there's a deeeeeeraaailllllllllll by powerclown, he nets ... negative ONE MEEEELION POINTS.

With an assist from the dentist with a BS in biology!

Ok, I'll be good now.

Ustwo · 11-14-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Dear Dr. Ustwo,

I must therefore ask:

In the best of all possible worlds, would you rather be an ant, or a Communist?

The communist of course. An ant is unaware of the slavery and can not escape, a communist can. Of course this brings one to the red pill/ blue pill overused debate, and the Matrix is too crappy a movie at its core to bring up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

With an assist from the dentist with a BS in biology!

Ok, I'll be good now.

M.S.

(Plus two additional post grad years, and a year of epidemiology)

j8ear · 11-14-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...and the Matrix is too crappy a movie at its core to bring up again.

Now this kind of uncalled for attack, is just too far over the line.

,

-bear

powerclown · 11-15-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The communist of course. An ant is unaware of the slavery and can not escape, a communist can. Of course this brings one to the red pill/ blue pill overused debate, and the Matrix is too crappy a movie at its core to bring up again.

Perhaps, but it raises the question of whether or not the proletariat is aware enough of his circumstances to know the difference.

Keanu Reeves is a bad mamma-jamma.
Are you sure you aren't referring to Fahrenheit 9/11?

pan6467 · 11-15-2005, 08:53 AM

A congressman's duty is to represent to the best of his ability the voices of his constituents. It is not to play party politics, it is not to curry favor with the president, press or anyone else not in his district.

That is why we elect them to give voice to the people they represent, and to preserve and protect the Constitution, the rights given and the voices of those who elected him.

11-14-2005, 06:39 AM	#1 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Duty of a Congressman Do you think it is the duty of a congressman to vote for what he feels is the right way to vote or to vote for the way his constituents want him to vote?

11-14-2005, 07:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I think that depends. In most cases, at least in theory, voting his belief would already be voting the constituents' belief, since that is why he was elected. However, there are other cases (base closings, spending cuts, etc.) where the question becomes much harder to answer. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-14-2005, 07:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	In theory, but only in theory, a Congressman is elected because the people trust him/her to do the right thing. In this case, it would make sense for the Congressman to vote in the manner they thought proper. In the real world, of course, constituents get angry when their representatives vote otherwise than they would have. Compounding the difficulty is the fact that gauging public opinion through widespread polls is expensive and can only be conducted on the most important issues. Thus, sometimes representatives don't even have the option of following pubic opinion. The problem is this: the people trust the Congressman to vote his/her conscience if and only if the Congressman votes the interest of the constituency. Ah, paradoxes... __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

11-14-2005, 06:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	--- and there's a deeeeeeraaailllllllllll by powerclown, he nets ... negative ONE MEEEELION POINTS. I believe that I elect a representative to represent MY (and obviously my fellow consituents) beliefs, not so he or she can present their own agenda. If I wanted an agenda, I'd run myself. I want them to represent those who elected them, and nothing more. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

11-15-2005, 08:53 AM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	A congressman's duty is to represent to the best of his ability the voices of his constituents. It is not to play party politics, it is not to curry favor with the president, press or anyone else not in his district. That is why we elect them to give voice to the people they represent, and to preserve and protect the Constitution, the rights given and the voices of those who elected him. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-14-2005, 07:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I think that a congressman should vote how they feel to be right. We have a representative gov't in the US for a reason. For that to work properly, congressmen have to vote for what's best for their state/country and not what will get them reelected.

11-14-2005, 08:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Are you going to turn every thread in politics into something about how the democrats thought saddam had wmd? Because i think we get the point.

11-14-2005, 10:40 AM	#8 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	In a perfect world our polititians would be people who serve for a few years, putting their private lives and occupations on hold, for the betterment of their fellow citizens. In theory this would attract the best and the brightest and they should be leaders and vote what they think is best for us all. In the real world, only those with connections and access to the two major parties have any chance of winning. This does not attract many people with integrity or leadership qualities as evidenced by the current crop of weak statesmen/women that are in power.