Thread: Pro-knife/Anti-knife?

Originally Posted by Syme

I can't blame the politician for doing what the public tells them to do, but what the lobbyist tells them to do is another matter. As I said, I'm not anti-lobby, but there are degrees of receptiveness to lobby pressure, and I feel that at a certain point it's possible for a politician to cross a line in that spectrum and behave in an unprincipled fashion. To me, a politician who introduces and strongly advocates legislation that he himself does not understand has crossed that line. The fact that they hold their office in order to represent their constituents does not make that kind of behavior any less unprincipled or reprehensible. A politician cannot excuse outrageously unprincipled behavior by saying "Hey I'm just here to represent my constituents", especially when the behavior in question is obviously not driven by the demands of their constituents. Again, I feel that elected lawmakers do have a few responsibilities beyond just voting in accord with the views of their constituents, and one of those responsibilities is the responsibility to understand the issues they are voting on, especially the issues that they themselves are personally pushing. I think that failure to do so is a failure to behave in a principled fashion, and I find it reprehensible. If you think that they have no such responsibilities and that this behavior is therefore not reprehensible, then that's your own business; you are, of course, free to have whatever opinions you like about the responsibilities of lawmakers.

I don't condone a politician acting on any other behalf other than the people who elected and supported them including lobbyists. I do condone (with slight disdain) a politician being a feeble puppet beneath them, even if they're forced to give the "hey look faggot i'm just here to represent my people" line. The constituents are being represented by the politician, much like the relationship between a client and a defense attorney. I know I wouldn't vote for anybody who either gave me the impression they wouldn't do as they said during the campaign, or wouldn't do things that aligned with my views.

Your ideals and opinions are your own, however, and as long as you don't truly believe that an average politician is supposed to be some magical personality with outstanding morals and a vision for a better America, I have no problem supporting your view.

Originally Posted by Syme

Well, you call it "scummy" and I call it "disturbing"--these terms actually aren't too far apart, I think. Again, I'm not saying it surprises me, or that I'm shocked that it goes on. I agree that it's definitely been going on for as long as humans have been organizing governments. But that doesn't mean we have to like it, and it doesn't mean that no-one should point out especially egregious examples of it.

I guess you can look at a firetruck and announce that it's red, if you're really bored. You can't expect everybody to want to hear about it though.

Originally Posted by faesce

Your ideals and opinions are your own, however, and as long as you don't truly believe that an average politician is supposed to be some magical personality with outstanding morals and a vision for a better America, I have no problem supporting your view.

Of course not... I'd say that most politicians, even the above-average ones, are essentially opportunistic people. All systems of political organization are based around the activities that keep the leadership in power, which in our system means winning elections; actually doing good things for the body politic comes second.

Originally Posted by faesce

I guess you can look at a firetruck and announce that it's red, if you're really bored. You can't expect everybody to want to hear about it though.

This is a good point.. but at the same time, if you're really bored, then you can come into gun forums and announce how pointless it is for the posters in that forum to gripe about anti-gun politicians. You can't expect any of them to care that you think it's pointless, though.