But you aren't being persuasive and you are being provocative. Even if you don't intend it, you come off as very mean spirited and that's not productive
Replies
I'm not persuasive to you. I've gotten plenty of positive comments along the way, as well as new followers, and I've come to a consensus with a few folks in other threads where we started out disagreeing but met in the middle.
aug 29, 2025, 5:29 pm • 7 0 • view
(1/2) I've been following this discussion less actively and I agree that a functional political system has better tools of collective accountability. That is, a party articulates agenda, wins, implements agenda, people vote on how that feels). But most policymaking isn't - can't be that clean.
aug 30, 2025, 2:11 pm • 0 0 • view
(2/2) A second problem is that geographic discriminators, especially ones as complex as district lines, aren't great tools for partisan collective accountability, and policy outcomes as serious as lifesaving healthcare have a moral component to them that, say, tax rates or road projects do not.
aug 30, 2025, 2:13 pm • 0 0 • view
...that is to say, I agree that our system needs better mechanisms to bring home real life impact of voter decisions and party agendas, and those feedback mechanisms are dangerously clogged right now. The question for me is whether courting mass death and immiseration in rural TN is the right fix.
aug 30, 2025, 2:15 pm • 0 0 • view
While that’s all true, I think it’s more that I just want Democrats to prioritize their constituents, and obviously, that will include many rural districts such as WA-03 if they gain a trifecta. And Republicans can join in, too, if they actually agree to vote for these bills instead of attacking 1/
aug 30, 2025, 2:22 pm • 1 0 • view
them. The practice that needs to end is a bill including pork for districts whose politicians then simultaneously run against the bill and then show up at the ribbon-cutting. Wanting the benefits of a safety net means supporting, not undermining, the safety net. 2/2
aug 30, 2025, 2:22 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, I agree with bills prioritizing constituents - that's a part of the job of a representative in a SMD! One question, though, is which programs/expenditures are amenable to selective constituent focused expenditure w/o losing overall efficacy. Bridges, sure. Medical insurance programs? Probs not.
aug 30, 2025, 2:35 pm • 0 0 • view
And yes, credit-claiming against the record (IE for projects funded by bills you voted against or programs you voted to cut) is a huge problem. But that's an electoral question, not one easily solved through policy or chamber rules. A good opponent can skewer you on negative ads about that stuff.
aug 30, 2025, 2:37 pm • 0 0 • view
Oh, I see the problem. You're Christian. That explains the lack of morals and the irrational faith in your own absurdities.
aug 29, 2025, 6:07 pm • 3 0 • view
Pandering to feckless quisling filth doesn't indicate good arguments.
aug 29, 2025, 6:06 pm • 3 0 • view
👍
aug 29, 2025, 5:34 pm • 3 0 • view