I think that perhaps this is half right. It is her influence that is the problem. That she represents her district that voted her in a free and fair election is part of the warts and all that comes with democracy.
Don't get me wrong, she's embarrassing, but only her national influence is embarrassment I feel as an American. Since I d…
I think that perhaps this is half right. It is her influence that is the problem. That she represents her district that voted her in a free and fair election is part of the warts and all that comes with democracy.
Don't get me wrong, she's embarrassing, but only her national influence is embarrassment I feel as an American. Since I don't live in her district and more importantly didn't vote for her, that she was elected is embarrassment that her Republican constituents can have all to themselves.
why would you think any district in GA runs a free or fair election these days
but assuming it's true, we desperately DESPERATELY need some MINIMUM STANDARDS for running for public office -- intelligence, experience, expertise, relevant background, ability to pass the citizenship and have read the Constitution once.... SOMEthing!
All great in theory, but in practice it gets tricky. Especially when it is the other side who says the same thing and then wants to write the test.
There are ways I'd like to fix winding up with MTG's in congress, but arbitrary tests aren't one of them.
Open primaries, ranked choice voting, repeal the limit on # of congressional seats. Fix gerrymandering.
But if after all that a district wants to vote in a semi-conscious grapefruit, that's one of the warts of democracy that we have to accept.
All that said, I could see the citizenship test being okay, but I really don't think it would keep out anyone except for people with enough of a learning disability as to be unable to be coached for it.
I take your points. But I don't see the time or will to truly fix process.
As for the grapefruits, if they can be coached well enough to pass the citizenship test, then fine, admit them. They would then have a modicum of knowledge of their job. I doubt most of Congress could pass it ad hoc.
I think that perhaps this is half right. It is her influence that is the problem. That she represents her district that voted her in a free and fair election is part of the warts and all that comes with democracy.
Don't get me wrong, she's embarrassing, but only her national influence is embarrassment I feel as an American. Since I don't live in her district and more importantly didn't vote for her, that she was elected is embarrassment that her Republican constituents can have all to themselves.
why would you think any district in GA runs a free or fair election these days
but assuming it's true, we desperately DESPERATELY need some MINIMUM STANDARDS for running for public office -- intelligence, experience, expertise, relevant background, ability to pass the citizenship and have read the Constitution once.... SOMEthing!
All great in theory, but in practice it gets tricky. Especially when it is the other side who says the same thing and then wants to write the test.
There are ways I'd like to fix winding up with MTG's in congress, but arbitrary tests aren't one of them.
Open primaries, ranked choice voting, repeal the limit on # of congressional seats. Fix gerrymandering.
But if after all that a district wants to vote in a semi-conscious grapefruit, that's one of the warts of democracy that we have to accept.
All that said, I could see the citizenship test being okay, but I really don't think it would keep out anyone except for people with enough of a learning disability as to be unable to be coached for it.
I take your points. But I don't see the time or will to truly fix process.
As for the grapefruits, if they can be coached well enough to pass the citizenship test, then fine, admit them. They would then have a modicum of knowledge of their job. I doubt most of Congress could pass it ad hoc.