Didn't Olympus Has Fallen teach us anything about the folly of public White House tours? #NEVERAGAIN

People say this all the time. I’m not sure if it’s legally accurate, but am 100 percent certain that anybody getting the pardon doesn’t give a ****.

We’re way past the principled Watergate criminals who thought this was important. Mike Flynn wears his pardon like a badge of honor. If you pointed out to him that it means his actually guilty, he’d just say the only thing he’s guilty of is loving his country too much.

The USA or the Constitutional USA 2.0?

Your point amounts to the following: "If I were a constituent, I would want the rep to do what I want. If I were the rep, I would do what I wanted to do. In other words, I want to have my burger my way."

Not exactly profound.

Haven't heard from np1232324 or any of the other *very serious* Trumpers now that the clown coup has moved into calling for executions and military intervention. Weird.

Conservative Republican ideology is generally associated with a different model of representation. They conceive of representatives as trustees meant to do what they think best, not delegates acting on behalf of voters. Their seminal text on representation is Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, which argues that representatives have a duty to follow their own judgement rather than the will of voters:

If it's a safe red district, your rep can't lose to a Democrat but they can lose to a republican. If you only look at people who will be voting in the republican primary, it's probably above 50% that support the Texas craziness.

Let's hope these MAGAhats finally succeed in something

Exactly. But I'm still not sure what triggered the debate of whether a Congressman should vote his conscience or the will of his constituents in the current case. These dunderheads signed on with no push from their districts AFAICT, but simply yielded to the threat of blackmail from Trump's ranking henchmen as they collected signatures.

This debate has been about an issue other than the one that should apply imo.

I strongly disagree with this. Politicians are elected to lead. They should do so with the interests and desires of their constituents foremost in their mind, of course, but much of the time, they are going to have to decide what is best, for many reasons:

1) They're often not going to know with certainty what the majority of their constituents want (you've allowed for this one).
2) A lot of the time, they're going to have more information than their constituents. Leaving aside the times things change since they last knew their constituents' wishes, as that falls under 1), there are going to be situations where decisions need to be made based on things their constituents can't know for reasons of security of confidentiality.
3) Sometimes leaders need to lead. There are times when short term pain leads to long term gain, where constituents are actually going to advocate against their own interests. Social progress can be accelerated when leaders can take us somewhere that their constituents weren't quite ready for yet.

I know 3) can be controversial, and it can definitely be misused. But just because it can be misused doesn't mean we shouldn't give politicians that power. And it's important that you know and understand candidates' values when you vote for them, so you can have faith that when they have to make difficult decisions, they will likely line up with your own values and/or be made in what they believe is everyone's best interests. It requires some trust, and that can be difficult in politics.

Great post! I certainly wouldn't consider myself a "Conservative Republican", but I'm on board with that philosophy.

You know you're extreme when you call Kelly Loeffler a RINO.

I have started to refer to Kayleigh as “the denture lady”, because the only times that she isn’t lying through her teeth is whenever she forgets to put her dentures in.

Man, that sounds like a lot of effort to be shoehorning that in on a recurring basis.

"That ****ing denture lady."
"Who's that?"
"Kayleigh McEnany."
"Oh. I don't get it."
"You see, because..."

lol@ That thumbnail. Those little squirts mean business

Make the sign red/white&black that'll be awesome


I think I saw like 5 girls. Bunch of angry morons.

Unlike the SCOTUS I possess courage and wisdom

As funny and stupid this is, a bunch of angry morons with lots of AR15's who feel they were cheated out of the most important election in recent times is kinda scary.

they said they were gonna revolt when Barack was president. small halfhearted vocal fringe. the odd lone actor occasionally is insane enough to do anything.

these times aren't anymore turbulent than any other

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wat...ow-97619013993

These times are way different than Obama days; these guys are more kooky and angry and there are a lot more of them. There probably is nothing to worry about, but there is a chance weird **** pops off, or at least this insanity continues to grow and fester. I'm hoping that 4 years of boring politics with decorum causes divisions to subside.

Ok...? I think you forgot what was your point?

You called the reps abhorrent for signing the Texas suit.

I said: Devil's advocate here. Why is it wrong to represent your constituents when your job title is Representative?

You don't have an answer and asked questions instead, and here we are.

I submit that your job in congress is not simply to "represent" all opinions even those you know to be objectively & veritably false. Maybe a congressperson should try and talk to his people and educate them?

I know it sounds radical....

But is that what they're doing? I find it unlikely that the majority of voters in any constituency would be in favour of that lawsuit, if it was explained properly. I suppose it might be possible in a handful where there was a large Republican majority. But even in one of those constituencies, it's questionable that the rep would know he had that kind of support for something that ridiculous.

Congressmen take an oath swearing to uphold the Constitution. I think it's pretty clear-cut that they should not knowingly subvert the Constitution on the basis that their constituents would prefer they do so.

Granted, I can't know whether someone believes something to be Constitutional or not. Obviously Trump is almost certainly not the only federal official who has no ****ing clue what the Constitution even says. But that's at least a clear dividing line where the will of the constituents can't simply be carte blanche to do anything.

It goes beyond "might be possible" in districts with notable GOP majorities. At this point, most GOP voters very plainly prioritize winning no matter what it takes, including supporting actions where they would be howling at the ****ing moon if the shoe was on the other foot.

is a representative job to respect laws , constitution of the country first or to do what his constituants wishes first ?

+1