Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maine is a purple state. Collins has been walking a tightrope, regardless of current events. And frankly, I think we need more senators who put principle ahead of keeping their job in Congress. That's the thing I just don't get. So many of you think the way a person should lead is to be swayed at all times by the opinions of the public, rather than following the rule of law and the Constitution. Collins voted based on the evidence that was presented to her. She knew her yes vote for Kavanaugh could be detrimental to her seat in the Senate, yet she voted for him anyway, because she thought it was the right thing to do after seeing all the evidence, or lack of. So please, go ahead, revel in the idea that she's gonna be out because of this vote. I'm sure she had already thought all of that through before she decided on her vote. She chose to vote without thinking of herself first. Exactly the kind of person I think belongs in the Senate. Susan Collins properly represented her constituents, even if they aren't all happy with how she did it. This is still America, and Ms. Collins seems to understand that uncorroborated allegations do not make a person guilty of a crime. And as such, a person should not be punished based on public opinion, which changes like the tides.
PS. There is a difference between representing your constituents and submitting to "mob rule".
Mob rule is what we have now--it is McConnell's Mob (politely called a congressional majority, doing an ignorant buffoon's (who just happened to have given McConnell's wife a cabinet appointment) bidding. One could actually call Elaine Chao's appointment a 'bribe' to McConnell, as long as we're throwing the word 'bribe' around sloppily.
The SCOTUS fiasco that has been going on since McConnell refused Garland a hearing is certainly a type mob boss rule. Just like the old days with a corrupt political machine--that is what we have right now.
Collins is no martyr. She had to choose between the Maine republicans voting her out, or the Dems voting against her. She is probably toast either way.
Sorry, but I don't believe that's correct. Congressmen/women are there to represent their constituents, not submit to their every whim. They are there to represent us while also adhering to the Constitution. Sometimes what is right and fair may not be what some of your constituents want. Sometimes, hard decisions must be made that may prove to be detrimental to you as a person. It's a hard road trying to follow the principles that govern this country while also keeping an ever-increasingly volatile populace in your corner. And I'm sorry, but in the end, respecting our Constitution and Bill of Rights should always win over popular opinion. As I said in my other post, public opinion is always changing, and sometimes what some of the people want flies straight in the face of the principles our country is based on. In that situation, the rule of law and the Constitution should always be the deciding factor. Not the people calling for unjust actions based on nothing more than opinions and propaganda.
But... hear me on this...
If you are actually accepting feedback from the constituents and (using the Kavanaugh case as an example) 70% of your constituents who contact you have issues with Kavanaugh (for whatever reason), voting along party lines is a jerk move.
I don't think anyone in Congress is so qualified to figure out whether or not some guy (or some woman) would make a good Supreme Court justice that they should ignore the voters in their state/district.
Now, if this was about something like a bill before Congress that had extenuating circumstances that the general public might not know about or understand, that would be a different matter.
Still, if you look at almost ALL of the Senate? They voted party on this confirmation. They didn't vote based on how he presented as a candidate.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Collins will likely be leaving the senate after her next election.
Who cares?
She's a friggin' RINO who, along with two other RINOs, finally grew a spine and did the right thing; usually, she doesn't.
And I've said it before: If Republicans don't have anyone waiting in the wings to supplant these old farts (and they don't), they deserve to lose even senate seats.
She's a friggin' RINO who, along with two other RINOs, finally grew a spine and did the right thing; usually, she doesn't.
And I've said it before: If Republicans don't have anyone waiting in the wings to supplant these old farts (and they don't), they deserve to lose even senate seats.
Why's she a RINO? What is even a RINO anymore? Someone who isn't a huge Trump ass kisser?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
This is no different than the usual influence peddling that goes on every single day in Congress\Senate.
Donations are made, votes are secured.
At this point, it's legal, she can't change her vote so get over it folks it's done.
Besides, she has a few years for:
a) things to cool down
b) if RoeWade is still intact as I suspect, she'll be able to point to the hysteria over that as an "I told you so".
All that aside, it's not my issue, I leave this to the fine voters of Maine to determine their own course either way.
P.S. If you're that upset about it then donate to Collins. *shrug*
More than bribery, it is a subtle threat of blackmail.
But that is OK. It is completely legal. But money does not mean people automatically win elections. Let the people of Main decide if they want her as their senator or not.
The CrowdPac website has raised $3.5 Mil to unseat Susan Collins in 2020. Collins had the audacity to say on 60 minutes
"“This is a classic quid pro quo as defined in our bribery laws,” she said. “They are asking me to perform an official act and if I do not do what they want, $2 million plus is going to go to my opponent. "
Since when is giving money to a political opponent "bribery"? Of course it isn't. She's a smart lady, she knows better, so I conclude she's lying. Her whining about the $3.5 mil raised against her is pretty rich considering she supported Citizens United. I guess giving freely to political causes is protected free speech but not when it's to Democrats, eh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
