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.
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?
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?
She's the ultimate attention hoar. She loves being the center of attention every time that an important vote comes up. I have a strong suspicion that the Repubs in fact bribed her to grandstand and vote the way that she did.
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?
Collins will likely be leaving the senate after her next election.
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".
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".
I think we need more in Congress who actually listen to their constituents. They are there to make decisions based on what we want, not on what their party wants.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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?
What she is talking about is when a particular group says "Hey, if you vote this way, this 2 million dollars will come your way. If you vote the other way, we'll give it to your opponent". In essence, that is attempted bribery, but not in any way illegal. They were basically just telling her where that money would go if she didn't vote their way. But hey, I have a question for you. If she had voted "no" on Kavanaugh in order to secure that 2 million dollars, would she be guilty in your mind of taking a bribe? Would you even care, since that would mean the vote went in the Democrat's favor?
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.
