RE: 16% verse 50%

RE: 16% verse 50% (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/22/2013 8:28:22 AM)
quote: I think DesideriScuri's got a point. People may not like Congress as a whole, but the majority do like thier particular representative, and they listen to that person. This has been proven true by pollsters and interviewers.

FelineRanger -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/22/2013 9:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Might want to look into the Clinton thing again, too. Rumor has it he was impeached over lying under oath... Technically, yes, that's accurate. But look how far they had to go to get to that point. The effort to remove Clinton from consideration began by creating the Whitewater "scandal" during his first campaign for President. Then there was "Travelgate." Bluntly, the Clinton Presidency was one manufactured scandal after another because the Republicans en masse were just pissed that they weren't in power any more.

LizDeluxe -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/22/2013 9:38:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether While the whole of Congress (that would be both Democrats, Independents *AND* Republicans) is hovering at 16%. In fact, Americans seem to score Republicans (14%) worst than Democrats (19%). So you may or may not like how the President is doing, but at least half the nation thinks he's doing an 'o.k.' job. Were as with Congress, 4/5 people in the nation think they are sucking at their jobs. So the question I have is, would you take.....ANYONE....in Congress seriously when they try to bash the White House for....ANYTHING? The biggest issue people seem to comment on about Congress is the partisanship and lack of compromise. Yet, if you survey the commentary that goes on about politics at the grass roots level - and it is especially evident even here in P&R - you'll see the same partisan mindset. You have those on the left who feel the Dems can do no wrong and the GOP can do no right. You have those on the right with mirror image views. People don't see the "whole" of Congress. They only see that the other side is the problem. The folks in Congress are a clone of the people who elected them. DS also made a great point about how people view Congress.

graceadieu -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/22/2013 10:21:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: I think DesideriScuri's got a point. People may not like Congress as a whole, but the majority do like thier particular representative, and they listen to that person. This has been proven true by pollsters and interviewers. And by the fact that they keep electing them! If only 16% of people in a district liked their representative, they wouldn't get reelected. The fact that they do means that a majority - or at least a plurality - of the voters in their district support them.

joether -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/23/2013 1:06:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: I think DesideriScuri's got a point. People may not like Congress as a whole, but the majority do like thier particular representative, and they listen to that person. This has been proven true by pollsters and interviewers. And by the fact that they keep electing them! If only 16% of people in a district liked their representative, they wouldn't get reelected. The fact that they do means that a majority - or at least a plurality - of the voters in their district support them. An this is where the insanity comes from. That most people like their elected officials yet Congress as a whole is 'doing the will of the American people' only 16% of the time. How low does this approval number need to go, before we hold all of Congress to the same standards that we do the White House? If you think about it, the White House is responsible for much less compared to Congress, yet gets four times the scrutiny over petty things.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/23/2013 4:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: I think DesideriScuri's got a point. People may not like Congress as a whole, but the majority do like thier particular representative, and they listen to that person. This has been proven true by pollsters and interviewers. And by the fact that they keep electing them! If only 16% of people in a district liked their representative, they wouldn't get reelected. The fact that they do means that a majority - or at least a plurality - of the voters in their district support them. An this is where the insanity comes from. That most people like their elected officials yet Congress as a whole is 'doing the will of the American people' only 16% of the time. How low does this approval number need to go, before we hold all of Congress to the same standards that we do the White House? If you think about it, the White House is responsible for much less compared to Congress, yet gets four times the scrutiny over petty things. IMO, too many people do place significantly more responsibility at entrance to the Oval Office, compared to Congress. Not all of it is warranted, though much of it is. The problem comes in when you can't separate "orders" from the President from the normal (mal)functioning of Congress.

thishereboi -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/23/2013 5:28:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: WHY....do we the American people even listen to any of these GOP members that are in Congress? Why do they listen to the Dems who are mirror opposites? quote: So the question I have is, would you take.....ANYONE....in Congress seriously when they try to bash the White House for....ANYTHING? I usually don't. I think most of them are self serving idiots on both sides. That said I do hold out hope for Senator Stabenow. Really? Have the democrat leaders manufactured fake evidence against a republican? Did I say anywhere that they had? I said I think most of them (on both sides) are self serving idiots but I kinda like Stabenow. Maybe you wouldn't look like such an idiot if you just learned how to read and quit putting words in peoples mouths. Is there any chance you`ll stop lying? Show me one lie in that post or admit that you just like making baseless accusations about people. I'll take the silence as admission not that I expected any thing different.

Zonie63 -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/23/2013 5:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: I think DesideriScuri's got a point. People may not like Congress as a whole, but the majority do like thier particular representative, and they listen to that person. This has been proven true by pollsters and interviewers. And by the fact that they keep electing them! If only 16% of people in a district liked their representative, they wouldn't get reelected. The fact that they do means that a majority - or at least a plurality - of the voters in their district support them. An this is where the insanity comes from. That most people like their elected officials yet Congress as a whole is 'doing the will of the American people' only 16% of the time. How low does this approval number need to go, before we hold all of Congress to the same standards that we do the White House? If you think about it, the White House is responsible for much less compared to Congress, yet gets four times the scrutiny over petty things. And there's a reason for that, too. The President is in direct operational command of the Executive Branch, while Congress really can't do anything other than pass bills and resolutions. FDR established the Imperial Presidency, so it's natural that people would view the President (and not Congress) as being the center of power in the country, and thus, greater scrutiny. The shared experience the country had with Richard Nixon showed the people that the President is the main guy to watch, not Congress. To be honest, I think it's the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary which should get far more scrutiny than it currently gets.

DaddySatyr -> RE: 16% verse 50% (5/23/2013 6:02:19 AM)
When the founders were working to endow this nation, they wanted to avoid having "all" the power centralized in one person. They were rebelling against a monarchy. It was for this reason that they made the congress or "the peoples'" branch the strongest of the three. Zonie is correct. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has gotten out of the business of interpretting the constitution and gotten into the business of making law. Unlimited terms and non-accountability, anonymity (once they're placed on the bench) combine to make them "bullet-proof". If they're going to continue to create law, they need to have some accountability. I don't even have a clue what the answer might be because I do understand that the founding fathers didn't want them "fearing for their jobs". I'm not so sure that an absolute democracy isn't the best way to go. I've certainly been leaning in that direction for quite some time. Peace and comfort, Michael

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125