Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Protect the border? With Idaho?

There's a meth epidemic in eastern MT that can be traced to the border.

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:More team burt than not. The audacity of elected representatives standing up for their constituents' (admittedly batshit) ultra-con beliefs!

That assumes these people give a fuck what their constituents want or need. In my experience, Republicans are generally going to choose power grab over constituent wishes whenever that is a choice.

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:More team burt than not. The audacity of elected representatives standing up for their constituents' (admittedly batshit) ultra-con beliefs!

That assumes these people give a fuck what their constituents want or need. In my experience, Republicans are generally going to choose power grab over constituent wishes whenever that is a choice.

B, do you truly believe that approach is unique to Republicans and not applicable to all politicians in general?

Come on, man.

tragabigzanda wrote:

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:More team burt than not. The audacity of elected representatives standing up for their constituents' (admittedly batshit) ultra-con beliefs!

That assumes these people give a fuck what their constituents want or need. In my experience, Republicans are generally going to choose power grab over constituent wishes whenever that is a choice.

MT Rep. Matt Rosendale is an ultra-con, and he is one of the guys blocking McCarthy. He's a loon. He's also managed to convince the majority of eastern MT that he has their best interests at heart. IMO, it's not really up to him to pivot and do anything other than the stuff they elected him to do (divert tax dollars to private schools, "protect the border," fight Biden's spending agenda, develop fossil fuels, etc). If they want him to do something different, they'll have to let their voices be heard...

Granted, he's a slippery fuck who's skilled at doublespeak to obscure the details of his policies. But generally speaking, here in MT, there's no real divergence between his grab for power and the wishes of his constituents.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:More team burt than not. The audacity of elected representatives standing up for their constituents' (admittedly batshit) ultra-con beliefs!

That assumes these people give a fuck what their constituents want or need. In my experience, Republicans are generally going to choose power grab over constituent wishes whenever that is a choice.

B, do you truly believe that approach is unique to Republicans and not applicable to all politicians in general?

Come on, man.

Yes, Bammer, I do. I think a few Democrats have been guilty of it over the years, but it is the repeated and unending policy of the Republican party. And now it has fucked them.

BurtReynolds wrote:That's not how representative democracy works.

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:That's not how representative democracy works.

Via compromise and cooperation for the benefit of the public good?

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:More team burt than not. The audacity of elected representatives standing up for their constituents' (admittedly batshit) ultra-con beliefs!

That assumes these people give a fuck what their constituents want or need. In my experience, Republicans are generally going to choose power grab over constituent wishes whenever that is a choice.

B, do you truly believe that approach is unique to Republicans and not applicable to all politicians in general?

Come on, man.

Yes, Bammer, I do. I think a few Democrats have been guilty of it over the years, but it is the repeated and unending policy of the Republican party. And now it has fucked them.

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:That's not how representative democracy works.

Via compromise and cooperation for the benefit of the public good?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:That's not how representative democracy works.

Via compromise and cooperation for the benefit of the public good?

What constitutes the "public good" for folks who can walk to Prospect Park is likely quite different from folks in rural Montana.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:That's not how representative democracy works.

Via compromise and cooperation for the benefit of the public good?

What constitutes the "public good" for folks who can walk to Prospect Park is likely quite different from folks in rural Montana.

We agreed to be a country, so we're gonna have to figure it out. "Everything I want or I walk," ain't gonna get it done.

Coach wrote:I understand the House can't operate until it picks a speaker and that the number of votes to get there is historic, but this thing is going to be finalized within a week and then they can go back to work. Not sure it's really all that embarrassing and I am far from a Republican apologist.

B wrote:Do you think he was lying about his name too?