Anti-gay married Republican quits after he is caught having gay sex in his office - Polidicks

[QUOTE=erkor;52900083]i dont understand people like this why do you campaign against gay rights and then lead a secret gay life i mean isnt he essentially jeopardizing himself in the future if any of his campaigns were to succeed?? did he expect never to be uncovered????[/QUOTE] I think these people want to make gay marriage a super exclusive and chiq thing and hog it all for themselves in secret.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900096]It is entierly possible for him to back anti-gay bills and be gay himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.[/QUOTE] wow i didnt know basic human rights are actually just identity politics for libtard snowflakes, now im gonna go enslave a black person to stick it to the libtard (((identity politicians)))!!

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900173]I never said you hate gays. [B]And a politician that blindly does what their constituency wants is a bad politician.[/B] People usually don't know much of what they're talking about. And, if we want to, we can spin it very slightly by saying that said representative is there to act in the interests of his constituency. They can vote him out of course if they decide he's done a bad job, but he'd be a better politician in that way, even if he's less electable.[/QUOTE] I can buy that. So basically someone like Bernie sanders who sticks to their guns on Gay marriage is ultimately a better politician than someone like Hillary Clinton who changes her views on Gay Marriage as the majority changes their views. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900247]No?[B] I'm arguing for representative democracy.[/B] That's why I said it might make you less electable. Don't throw around words like oligarchy if you don't know what they mean. This is how elections work anyways. Candidates create policy platforms that they try to sell to their constituency, and we have a goddamn Constitution, an independent central bank, etc. for these reasons.[/QUOTE] Wait a minute, isn't the point of a representative in a Representative Democracy to represent the people who voted for them? So if you are arguing for representative democracy why are you calling representatives that represent the people who voted for them "Bad" and the representatives that only represent themselves good? James xX argument that you want an Oligarchy doesn't seem that far fetched now, because you are calling for representatives to go against the wishes of the people who voted for them. That is, the elected officials decide policy based off of their own morals ( A small group) rather than those who voted for them (A large group). [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900173] People usually don't know much of what they're talking about. [/QUOTE] I would think it is safe to say this also could apply to both of us. All of that aside I see what you are going for and I do agree. Politicians should build their platforms based on their beliefs but sadly that doesn't win and winning is all politicians care about. That's why you see shifty candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; they exploit the current political system to win and its worked for both of them in the past and one in the most recent election. On the other hand, people like Bernie Sanders who stick with their beliefs regardless of how popular it is are the ideal politician. But sadly people like him seem to be far and few between because being genuine just doesn't win most of the time.

[QUOTE=Timof2009;52901855]I can buy that. So basically someone like Bernie sanders who sticks to their guns on Gay marriage is ultimately a better politician than someone like Hillary Clinton who changes her views on Gay Marriage as the majority changes their views. Wait a minute, isn't the point of a representative in a Representative Democracy to represent the people who voted for them? So if you are arguing for representative democracy why are you calling representatives that represent the people who voted for them "Bad" and the representatives that only represent themselves good? James xX argument that you want an Oligarchy doesn't seem that far fetched now, because you are calling for representatives to go against the wishes of the people who voted for them. That is, the elected officials decide policy based off of their own morals ( A small group) rather than those who voted for them (A large group).[/quote] The main problem I think is you've read my posts in a bit too much of an absolutist manner. I take issue with the oligarchy part because the people still have the ability to remove representatives, if you disappoint your constituency and leave them unsatisfied, you're out. This is still what happens even if your platform is literally to just vote and introduce legislation based on polls. And what "representing your people" means does not have a single meaning, as I said before, it can be doing what you believe based on your evidence, platform, and reason will be the best for them. And of course you should take their will into account, it's just not everything, and often it's very dangerous. although I can't help myself but bring up that Sanders does contradict [URL="https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html"]his beliefs for his people's wishes[/URL]. [quote]I would think it is safe to say this also could apply to both of us.[/QUOTE] That absolutely does apply to both of us on many issues. We all have our domains of knowledge, and the technocratic aspect of politics is politicians working with qualified experts to deliver good policy instead of winging it.

[QUOTE]Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=James xX;52900096]It is entierly possible for him to back anti-gay bills and be gay himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. You don't follow your constituents in cases of science or human rights. If 99% of your constituents supported torture, or segregation, or whatever else demonstrably horrible and/or incorrect thing, you don't just roll with it.

He must have been in denial all along :v:

[QUOTE=James xX;52900096]It is entierly possible for him to back anti-gay bills and be gay himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.[/QUOTE] It is entierly possible for him to back anti-[I]black[/I] bills and be [I]black[/I] himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.

[QUOTE=Noss;52905916]It is entierly possible for him to back anti-[I]black[/I] bills and be [I]black[/I] himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.[/QUOTE] Sorry, having a problem with "anti-black" bills does not mean one subscribes to identity politics. We're not talking about laws that increase the punishment for traffic violations, we're talking about laws that deny equal rights to segments of the population. [QUOTE]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/QUOTE] Clearly whoever wrote this is just some SJW who's obsessed with identity politics.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900096]It is entierly possible for him to back anti-gay bills and be gay himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.[/QUOTE] Is it flaming to call this guy an idiot? Like, it's not flaming if it's the truth right? Am I wrong? He's an idiot, right? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible post. Put more effort into your posts in Polidicks" - postal))[/highlight]