Two key Senators who haven’t announced reelection plans leave questions about their future unanswered.

  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. She’s a traitor to her state and country. She doesn’t represent her constituents as she swore to.

    • markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      The senate oath of office says nothing about representing your constituents.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

        What do you think the duties of the office entail?

        • markr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I looked, I could find nothing under ‘duties of senators’ that referenced ‘representing your constituents’. They don’t. They represent their states. There is another legislative body, the House of Representatives, that side represents people. It’s a fucked up system.

            • markr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok. Meanwhile there is no oath that senators take that requires them to represent the people of their state. And further, as I pointed out, the senate does not represent people, it represents states. It was explicitly set up this way, and until 1913 senators were appointed by the states, not elected at all.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I literally posted the text of the oath they take. Their duties include representation of their constituents. The US is a representative democracy. Even when legislatures elected the Senate representatives, they legislatures were still elected. You’re revising the history of how our country was set up.

                • markr@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Please provide a link to the official duties of senators that includes ‘representing the people of their state’.

                  I agree that the US is generally a form of representative democracy, however the senate explicitly represents the states, not the people within the states, and always has. The fact that senators are equally allocated per state, rather than by population, with each state, regardless of population have the same number of senators does not support the theory that it is a representative democratic institution. The intention was explicitly to maintain the power of the individual states within a federation.

  • Xenxs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    So in American politics, all that matters is how much money you can raise?

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Turns out, selling out your constituency and betraying people who voted for you only has short term benefits.

    If she hadn’t left the party, she could count on the party’s overwhelming support in the primaries, ostensibly because she’s the incumbent, but actually because any challenger would be more progressive than her.

  • TehWorld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Republican party seems to have an ethos of “any win at any cost”, which has led us to Trump. It might sting in the short term to lose a senate seat, but benefit longer term to oust someone who does you no good anyway.