They don’t- but at some point people have to realize that their votes have consequences. They knew going in that this election could spell the difference between having health care and not, yet less than half of Montanans thought it was worth considering. So Montana has spoken, and they don’t give enough of a shit about each other to vote for a Democrat.
*"“There is no time where a physical altercation should occur,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said at his weekly news conference on Capitol Hill. “It should not have happened. Should the gentleman apologize? Yeah, I think he should apologize.”
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), one of Gianforte’s closest allies in Montana politics and a former co-worker at his Bozeman company, called his actions “unacceptable” and agreed that he should apologize."*
Arguably not an adequate response (and if he’s convicted of assault, he should resign). But not exactly "yeah, we’re cool with that). :dubious:
I agree Gianforte is short tempered, but I don’t agree he’s a white supremacist or on Russia’s payroll. I own index funds that invest in Pfizer but I am not fairly said to be on Big Pharma’s payroll. So far as I am aware, Gianforte owns shares in index funds that track Russian companies. Is that what you mean?
I agree that he’s not on Russia’s payroll. I haven’t read white supremacist things about him either.
He is a creationist and believes poor people should work until they die, so he’s still a complete shitbag unfit for office.
Republicans are scum. Why should it be a surprise that they both embrace and elect scumbags?
Pro-life as opposed to pro-choice.
Quist favors keeping the ACA.
Quist opposes school vouchers.
Quist supports federal legislation that would allow class action suits in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.
Well, now, there is a litany of horrors, to be sure.
As regards your second bullet, do Conservatives think the ACA is too much of a drain on government resources? That’s their usual stance on any measure that involves increased spending, but something about the ACA just really sticks in their craw and they never seem to articulate what it is.
Re: class action suits, I remember getting $20 from LinkedIn without having to sign my name, and I have no issue with that at all.
What exactly do members of the House have to do with abortion? I can see (but disagree) with that getting into your Senate or Presidential vote, but House members have no more to do with abortion than does your Drain Commissioner.
Um…it’s exactly the same as saying, “We’re cool with that.” It’s also saying, “We can’t take a chance on losing any seats, no matter what.”
OTOH, the new Republican policy on assaults will certainly lighten the load on the court system and keep the jail population down. Just let the accused apologize, and we can skip the fuss, bother, and expense of a trial. :rolleyes:
“A bad guy is a good choice because he gives me what I want.” That’s what’s wrong with this fucking country.
Maybe I’m missing something; near as I can tell, there are two separate questions.
One is, which candidate should I vote for? And the answer can be the one who votes the way I want, or some such. And the second question is, if a guy commits a misdemeanor, should he face a trial and then maybe pay a fine or spend some time behind bars; and the same person can answer, uh, yeah, of course.
What does one have to do with the other?
If you don’t mind being represented by [a person who assaults reporters/FILL IN THE BLANK] as long as they vote the way you want, then practically you are “fine” with being represented by someone who commits that kind of behavior.
From the perspective of the elected guy, it’s “hey, I can assault someone, and as long as they’re there right sort of victim, no one cares, they vote for me anyway!”
Rushgeekgirl said clearly what I tried to write and deleted in response to Bricker.
You get that I still want him to face trial, and then pay a fine and/or serve time behind bars if found guilty of the misdemeanor in question, right? I’d said it right there, in the bit you copy-and-pasted? If that’s being “fine” with something, what term do you have left for someone who says “yeah, he shouldn’t be punished,” then?
I can only speak for my own objections. I believe the ACA is unwise as a matter of the exercise of proper roles of government: specifically that the federal government exceeds the powers it should have by enacting national healthcare mandated purchasing.
I do.
House members vote on measures like prohibiting federal money to be used to procure abortions.
If he’s unwilling to plead guilty – that is, to “apologize” in a legal sense – then I certainly favor a trial. If he believes his actions were legally justified, then he can offer whatever defense he believes is appropriate.
However, for a first offense misdemeanor assault, I would be surprised to learn the typical Montana defendant gets jail time.
Well, I certainly hope that idiotic this thug gets jail time and a fine.
The Hyde amendment has been around forever. Are they going to make it go from prohibited to super-dee-duper prohibited?
You can’t abdicate your moral compass to the legal system.
I’m not concerned with legal punishment, I’m concerned with the fact that his actions don’t play into whether or not you’d choose to have him represent you and run your government.
And that’s the problem.