Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Sen Jeffords from Vermont pulls the silk on Republican party

This is topic Sen Jeffords from Vermont pulls the silk on Republican party in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/684.html

Posted by MIB on :

Although I don't think politicians should be allowed to switchs sides in the middle of a term, at least Bush doesn't have total power over everything anymore. Now the senate has 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independant. ahhhhh The first step toward getting rid of both parties. YAY!

------------------
"I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or am about to lie, or have just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!"--Homer Simpson.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

If you knew anything about politics, which you don't, you'd know that having Independent Senators and Representatives is nothing new.

All this means now is that you have people obsessed with spending your money in nominal charge of the Senate.

Coupled with the tax break, this could lead to more deficit spending, because Dems only stop throwing money away if strongly restrained.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ah, the speak of bitterness.

Senator Jeffords is a very smart man. Way to go! Now, thankfully, Bush won't have an easy time replacing Supreme Court Justices.

And while Fo2 likes to speak of throwing money away, one of the key reasons Jeffords opposed Bush's budget was because he wanted more spending on education. But, of course, some of the more conservative 'pubies would rather give you less taxes than an education ... more moderate (dare I say, liberal?) Republicans (like Mr. Jeffords was -- Republican, that is) believe spending money on education is a good thing.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

The Democrats should tread VERY lightly on this. Using the senate to pass one-sided policies can result in very explosive consequences. While there are things with the Democrats that I support, the Democrats should be very careful with the other issues that Republicans should deserve substantial input.

------------------
"Intelligence People. You guys are unbelievable. You dump a mess like this (that you created) on my lap, and then you come to me whining 'Where is our funding'? Well I'll tell you where your funding is. Can you say Health-Care?"
- The President of the United States of America, The Long Kiss Goodnight

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited May 24, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Jeffords aligned with the Democratic Party for organizational purposes. He'll keep voting the way he did when he was a Republican.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Yeah, like a Democrat. It's not all that big of a change, except for the chairmanships, which aren't worth ALL that much. He was a liberal, and he still is a liberal. Remember, we've got five conservative Democrats in the senate, too. Partys are irrelevant. PHILOSOPHIES are relevant.

------------------
"How do you define fool?"
"I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination."
- CJ Cherryh, Invader

Posted by MIB on :

[Quote]If you knew anything about politics, which you don't, you'd know that having Independent Senators and Representatives is nothing new.[Quote]

Touchy touchy, Fo2! Tell me, Do you have the capability to speak to godless, evil, democrats like me without insulting them first? No? I figured as much. And I know plenty about politics. I'm currently studying civics.

------------------
"I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or am about to lie, or have just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!"--Homer Simpson.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"Do you have the capability to speak to godless, evil, democrats like me without insulting them first?"

Well, I'm godless, as you'd know if you payed attention to any other points of view but your own. You'd also know I was until recently a registered Democrat (although I fixed that), and that I don't believe that Democrats in general are evil (although Clinton wrote the book on 'amoral'), just generally led astray, occasionally gullible, and often self-destructively self-loathing.

And they tend to listen to only one side of an argument.

>"I know plenty about politics. I'm currently studying civics."

I could LAUGH at how MUCH those two sentences are mutually EXCLUSIVE.

Let me tell you a little story about my experiences in Political Science.

Back in 1989, I took a PS course at a State University which shall remain nameless. We discussed events in the (then) USSR. On an essay question in our final test, we were asked to give our guesses as to future developments in that arena.

I was the only person who wrote in my essay that I believed that the breakup would continue, that the 15 republics would become independent states, and that regional seperatist movements would begin in formerly Soviet-dominated areas like Yugoslavia and ethnicly diverse areas like around the Caspian sea.

The prof took off several points and wrote: "not likely."

A few years later he tracked me down and called me to apologize.

So don't lecture me on your expertise

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

As was already pointed out, it doesn't matter what party the guy belongs to, nominally. He believes what he believes, and that's what will influence his legislation. He could start a new party called the "Society for Hitting Old Ladies on the Head with Plastic Chickens Whilst Yelling 'Whoop! Whoop! I Like Steak!'", and he'd still be the same guy, casting the same votes he would anyway.

------------------
"Even the colors are pompous!"
-a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure

Posted by MIB on :

I wasn't lecturing in expertise. I'm just saying I'm not TOTALLY clueless when it comes to politics. I still have much to learn though.

------------------
"I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or am about to lie, or have just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!"--Homer Simpson.

[This message has been edited by MIB (edited May 24, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I'm disappointed in Jeffords though. He ran on a Republican ticket, used Republican money/volunteers and got Republican votes.

And then changed parties.

What a asshole thing to do. He should have done what Phil Graham did- drop from the Senate, then re-run as the party he switches to.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

Posted by MIB on :

I agree. But there is no sense complaining about it. With the current rules, he made a legal move. It hasn't been the first time something like this happened too.

------------------
"I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or am about to lie, or have just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!"--Homer Simpson.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, like I said in another thread, if people voted for him just because of his party, w/o worrying about what he, personally, stood for, that's the screwed-up part. If it turns out that the guy's no good, I'll feel sorry for the people who didn't want him, but got stuck w/ him because of the idiots who voted for his party, w/o caring. But those idiots would be getting what they deserved, anyway.

------------------
"Even the colors are pompous!"
-a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I'm interested in finding out what will happen to the 'power sharing' deal that the Reps and Dems in the Senate had worked out back when it was 50-50. Will the Dems keep to that promise, or will they try to sieze all power by stuffing the committees during the reorganization? I'm betting on the latter.

However, I've heard that some of the Conservative Democrats may vote with Republicans to block the reorganization and keep the power-sharing in place.

(Bet some of you didn't even know there WAS a power-sharing deal...)

And at least one Democrat is going to blast Jeffords on the floor of the Senate for deserting his party.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yes, because we all know its better to be true to one's party then true to one's self.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It's still better, when elected, to be true to one's constituents and the people who elected one. That's their JOB, you know.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

...which has nothing to do w/ party affiliations.

------------------
"Even the colors are pompous!"
-a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It does in a two-party system, where you often don't simply vote FOR someone, but AGAINST the other guy. I suppose if we were more parliamentary, that would be different. Except that things get watered down just as much or more when you're forming coalitions between disparate parties.

Also, since most of the people who voted you in are of your party...

Also, since (despite what people say above) people DO tend to vote along their party lines (which is why so many Senate votes have been so close)...

Essentially, it's the same as breaking a major campaign promise.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Even if you have the mindset of voting along for a party, it is ultimately the person being elected that will make decisions and vote on legislation etc., and he/she is not compelled to go with any party platform in doing this. If you happen to vote for someone because of their affiliation, but they go and do things entirely differently than what you wanted, it's probably just your fault for not taking a closer look at the individual.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
Audience: *applauds*
John Linnell: "Thank you...you're much too kind. And we're going to prove it to you right now."