Senators were given 6 year terms so they could stand-up for what they believed and not be so tied to their constituents. That's why it's the Senate and not the House of REPRESENTATIVES.
There is something to what you're saying, but I think this argument is more applicable to a House Representative than a Senator.
sounds like you want to repeal the 17th amendment. you got my vote. you tried to claim I wanted all 2nd term presidents to resign which is not even close to what I said. MY logic is fine. Any representative who feels generally speaking they do not represent the views of their constituents should resign . second term, first term or otherwise. Defeats the purpose of a democracy otherwise. This applies to Jeff Flake.
No. I just don't expect Senators to be pure representatives of their constituency, irrespective of the 17th amendment. And even if they were, I don't think a Senstor should feel obliged to resign if not seeking reelection, unless he considers himself totally out of step with his state's voters. Is that the case with Arizona voters overall?
he has 18% approval rating last time I saw (not that approval rating is everything). They disagree with him on border security which is a really big issue in Arizona.
OK. Being intensely unpopular in one's own state would be a better reason to resign than the fact that he isn't seeking reelection.
Flake a "RHINO? LOL. He voted 90% along Trump's positions. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/jeff-flake/ He is a typically conservative politician: http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Jeff-Flake-400134 https://ballotpedia.org/Jeff_Flake http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/jeff-flake-0 This is what happens when "conservatives" become Trump supporters...
trump attacked every single person he ran against last year - lyin' ted / little marco / low-energy jeb / horseface carly fiorina / lindsey graham...he most infamously made fun of john mccain for being a POW. he attacked mitt romney. he accused lyin' teds father of being involved in the JFK assassination and basically called his wife ugly. as president he has attacked fellow republicans jeff sessions, jeff flake and bob corker he challenged his sec of state to an IQ test. at some point you have to ask yourself if its ALL these people or is it maybe trump that is the problem. trump fights with everyone. he thrives on being a jackass. its who he is.
If you meet an ******* in the morning: big deal, you met an *******. If you meet an ******* in the morning, the afternoon, and the evening: You're the *******.
This is why we have a republic instead of a direct democracy. Our system was constructed very consciously to protect to some extent the decision-making of our elected representatives from the changing whims of the day. The point is not to have elected officials be slaves to public opinion. We choose at the election a person in whose abilities we have confidence. And then they go and do what they think is best. If we want, we can choose them again. There is no moral imperative on elected officials to do what the voters want him to do. He has a moral imperative to do what he thinks is best for the country.
And to expand on that, we expect our elected representatives to study key issues at a depth and with resources we have neither time for nor access to. (I mean, a guy can dream.) But seriously, we expect reps to do exactly what some voters want on the international stage when the voters don't have access to all the intel available to our reps? It's asinine and just a way to attack these senators who are saying things that Trump and his water-carriers don't like. Who cares if they couldn't survive a rabid, data-and-logic-averse GOP primary in Tennessee or Arizona? How on Earth does that impact the truth and importance of their statements one bit? They aren't trying to grandstand for their own benefit, and neither man is trying to leave his party. Both men are trying to save their political party and conservatism in general.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/senator-corker-spitting-fire.285505/page-3#post-11383534 Keep up.
Perhaps it would be easier to follow along if you made a more coherent argument. For example, who wrote the following " Couldn't think of another place to put this. Its news...not earth shattering, but very telling. Being a RINO in the age of Trump makes you an endangered species." http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/senator-corker-spitting-fire.285505/page-3#post-11383464
And I agreed the statement was not well thought out. I'm trying to agree with your post, but you still intend on fighting with me. WTF man?
I guess this is what bothers me about the bowing out of Republican Senators who oppose Trump. Trump's popular support is pretty thin and tenuous. And he has this looming risk that the Mueller investigation will bring something compelling. So, while it seems like Trumpism is sweeping the nation, I see potential for it all to collapse very suddenly and for the tide to roll strongly in the other direction. If it does, conscientious objectors like Flake, Corker, and McCain will suddenly look like golden boys, the ones who never compromised themselves before Trump. But, by going out with a whimper (McCain gets a pass on that one) they will not be in any position to take advantage of the position they've staked out. Instead, it'll be up to a bunch of compromised Republican bootlickers to pick up the pieces while looking like complete hypocrites and cowards. Now, I don't know if any of that will happen. Trump might roll on. But these guys should at least preserve the optionality as long as they can.
I think they understand the political realities of their party better than you or I do. They'd need to be fundraising in a huge way, right now, to consider holding their seats. And they see exactly the forces lined up against them, from the official GOP network (Fox), to the rabid Trump diehards, to the Kochs. It's just too much, even if some sort of tide turns. I don't think any result from Mueller will get the Kochs and the very hard right away from their data-denying ways that just want to dismantle government, completely unfetter so-called free enterprise, and mainly concentrate as much wealth as possible in the upper strata. That's what a person like Flake is looking in the face, I believe.
Well that, and they'll put weight into things like stress, fatigue, risk, and opportunity cost (Flake's earning potential is going to bend skyward the day he leaves office) that are scored as zeroes in my mental model. I understand why an individual would make this choice -- I decided a long time ago the life of a politician seemed too lousy for me to aspire to. But, I'm still disappointed as a citizen that their personal decisions are sub-optimal for us.
