@averagejoe1 saidCan you actually read Joe?
Back up a step, you are getting off center. If town council people are duly elected, and they vote to raise taxes by $100 per household to build a community pool, and you dont swim, you dont want the pool, you do not want to pay the taxes..... And in your words, you dont 'respect' the decision, are you saying that you should not have to pay the $100.?
How could you possibly construe a lack of respect for, as a refusal to pay for?
@averagejoe1 saidFor god's sake its Chianti!
You're welcome. I do wish you and others would not change, or try to change, questions of the issues of other posters. I'm in the middle of a nice chianti and almost overlooked it, which would have rendered any answer of mine undecipherable. 😕
(Though I doubt that is what you are drinking.)
@suzianne saidBut you view this as personal....it is political. I am not talking about her as a person, I am speaking of her as the Speaker of the House. Congresswoman. Official capacity, such as that. She cannot PERSONALLY dole the money, she would be acting in official capacity.
Here's what you said in your OP:
"Is it FAIR for Pelosi to bail out (give money to) cities that have improperly managed the finances of their government and their citizens? I ask that, because other cities, like Lander, Wyoming, or Palousa WA, or many thousands of other cities, have run their cities correctly and are not going to get any money. Some of the money will come ...[text shortened]... this about a BILLION times?
Donald Trump lies because he gets away with it. That needs to stop.
Personal is getting a haircut when no one else can, or eating in a restaurant when advising the populace not to. Bad stuff.
4 edits
@averagejoe1 saidYou asked for examples of financial decisions voters don't have to respect and I gave one: giving huge tax breaks to corporations.
Back up a step, you are getting off center. If town council people are duly elected, and they vote to raise taxes by $100 per household to build a community pool, and you dont swim, you dont want the pool, you do not want to pay the taxes..... And in your words, you dont 'respect' the decision, are you saying that you should not have to pay the $100.?
You're the one getting off topic now. Your OP is about "poorly" running a city, which is something voters aren't necessarily responsible for. Should voters who wanted a different candidate from the one who is now "poorly" running a city, do they deserve to suffer the consequences? If Republicans mess up a city, should Democrats have to suffer the consequences?
Furthermore, it's not as simple as just who you vote for. There's also rampant voter suppression; gerrymandering is one egregious example. If politicians win because of voter suppression, is that the voter's fault? Do they still deserve the consequences?
What about if both choices for candidates are horrible? America is sadly a two-party system, leaving only two choices for most political offices. If both are horrible, is it still the voter's fault if that choice ruins their city? Is it fair that the voters must suffer the consequences?
1 edit
@vivify saidYes to all. Your elected officials make the laws. If a law says something you don’t like, you are here implying that you, as a citizen, whether Republican or Democrat, should not have to follow that law. Can you clarify that for a moment, and then I would love to answer your paragraphs above.
You asked for examples of financial decisions voters don't have to respect and I gave one: giving huge tax breaks to corporations.
You're the one getting off topic now. Your OP is about "poorly" running a city, which is something voters aren't necessarily responsible for. Should voters who wanted a different candidate from the one who is now "poorly" running a city, do th ...[text shortened]... r's fault if that choice ruins their city? Is it fair that the voters must suffer the consequences?
Everyone here is hanging on your answer.
@averagejoe1 saidNo.
you are here implying that you, as a citizen, whether Republican or Democrat, should not have to follow that law.
I'm saying the citizens of a cities shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of the poor decisions of lawmakers. Your OP is about "bail outs", right? If a city is in need of bailouts, you don't withhold it and blame the citizens for the poor decisions of lawmakers. I already explained why multiple times.
@vivify saidFirst, we are not talking about Corporations, we are talking about a town council (duly elected) that makes decisions that you don't like. You say that 'voters who wanted a different candidate' should not suffer the consequences of those decisions. You really have to explain that one Vivify. You make no sense. Can you elaborate, then we can discuss your next 2 paragraphs. It is easier to thresh out by doing one issue at a time.
You asked for examples of financial decisions voters don't have to respect and I gave one: giving huge tax breaks to corporations.
You're the one getting off topic now. Your OP is about "poorly" running a city, which is something voters aren't necessarily responsible for. Should voters who wanted a different candidate from the one who is now "poorly" running a city, do th ...[text shortened]... r's fault if that choice ruins their city? Is it fair that the voters must suffer the consequences?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhat;s to explain? This is self explanatory.
You say that 'voters who wanted a different candidate' should not suffer the consequences of those decisions. You really have to explain that one Vivify.
@averagejoe1 saidWhy do you conservatives do this? Claiming you "win" when the evidence is that you didn't. Donald does this too. Is that why you do it?
Everybody, another lib bites the dust. My gun is getting another notch. They just cannot hang on
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidSuzianne i did this post, saying to vivify to please explain. He says above that it is “self explanatory “? . He stopped our discussion dead in its tracks. Nothing. He quit. After my ‘evidence’ is clear. He walked out. If he loses, it naturally follows that I win.
First, we are not talking about Corporations, we are talking about a town council (duly elected) that makes decisions that you don't like. You say that 'voters who wanted a different candidate' should not suffer the consequences of those decisions. You really have to explain that one Vivify. You make no sense. Can you elaborate, then we can discuss your next 2 paragraphs. It is easier to thresh out by doing one issue at a time.
@averagejoe1 saidoops ... guess we lost Suzianne. 3 hours. I win.
Suzianne i did this post, saying to vivify to please explain. He says above that it is “self explanatory “? . He stopped our discussion dead in its tracks. Nothing. He quit. After my ‘evidence’ is clear. He walked out. If he loses, it naturally follows that I win.