Worst voting record in the house, this is heinous

[Spindrift]

She will never be the head of a major corporation...

She's over-qualified now?

 

[tomasF]

I was thinking today about the representatives and voting. I thought about who abstains from voting and how often. Is voting on legislation a fundamental role? Can a representative transcend that requirement?

I submit to you, representative Giffords's 2011 voting record.


Time Period Number of Votes Missed Votes Missed Percent
2011-Q1 212 201 94.8%
2011-Q2 281 281 100%
2011-Q3 247 246 99.6%
2011-Q4 208 208 100%

That feels like a really bad joke. You could seriously discuss if someone should resign after such an incident, but that is not the right start off for such an discussion.

 

[varwoche]

Nobody has shown any evidence that the political rhetoric being used by some was a factor. I've only seen speculation (which is not evidence). If you have some evidence that it was a factor then please show it here.

False. The post of mine that you repied to stated two facts -- not speculation -- that stand as evidence. Maybe not weighty evidence, but evidence nonetheless. And there are other such facts.

It's as if you don't understand the defintion of the word evidence, confusing it with proof.

 

[eeyore1954]

That feels like a really bad joke. You could seriously discuss if someone should resign after such an incident, but that is not the right start off for such an discussion.

This is the way I feel also. There is a legitimate discussion of the issue of should she resign but there is nothing heinous about the voting record.

 

[tyr_13]

This is the way I feel also. There is a legitimate discussion of the issue of should she resign but there is nothing heinous about the voting record.

Same here.

 

[varwoche]

Here's a mental model that might help explain my views. (The toxic sludge in Ghostbusters would have worked too.)

Think of the general population as a vat of water sitting on a stove, with each molecule representing a person. The vat contains hot molecules that are on the verge of becoming steam, cold molecules on the verge of freezing, and molecules at every temperature gradient in between. Now I'm going to turn up the flame just a teeny bit, warming the entire vat slightly. No molecule is immune; they all sit in the vat; they don't float in space. The hottest molecules become steam.

Of course, the hottest molecules represent people who are worked up and who have a propensity for violence for whatever reason -- insanity and/or political fervor. It's a given that such people exist.

People who engage in incendiary rhetoric, such as Gifford's opponent Jesse Kelly, AZ governor Jan Brewer, and others, turned up the heat. And they did so in what was already an over-heated political climate, that being Arizona.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Here's a mental model that might help explain my views. (The toxic sludge in Ghostbusters would have worked too.)

Think of the general population as a vat of water sitting on a stove, with each molecule representing a person. The vat contains hot molecules that are on the verge of becoming steam, cold molecules on the verge of freezing, and molecules at every temperature gradient in between. Now I'm going to turn up the flame just a teeny bit, warming the entire vat slightly. No molecule is immune; they all sit in the vat; they don't float in space. The hottest molecules become steam.

Of course, the hottest molecules represent people who are worked up and who have a propensity for violence for whatever reason -- insanity and/or political fervor. It's a given that such people exist.

People who engage in incendiary rhetoric, such as Gifford's opponent Jesse Kelly, AZ governor Jan Brewer, and others, turned up the heat. And they did so in what was already an over-heated political climate, that being Arizona.

And from what we actually DO know, this "heat" had absolutely nothing to do with Loughner's actions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Here's a mental model that might help explain my views. (The toxic sludge in Ghostbusters would have worked too.)

Think of the general population as a vat of water sitting on a stove, with each molecule representing a person. The vat contains hot molecules that are on the verge of becoming steam, cold molecules on the verge of freezing, and molecules at every temperature gradient in between. Now I'm going to turn up the flame just a teeny bit, warming the entire vat slightly. No molecule is immune; they all sit in the vat; they don't float in space. The hottest molecules become steam.

Of course, the hottest molecules represent people who are worked up and who have a propensity for violence for whatever reason -- insanity and/or political fervor. It's a given that such people exist.

People who engage in incendiary rhetoric, such as Gifford's opponent Jesse Kelly, AZ governor Jan Brewer, and others, turned up the heat. And they did so in what was already an over-heated political climate, that being Arizona.

How does a molecule shoot a gun?

 

[Newtons Bit]

How does a molecule shoot a gun?

Because a tree fell in the forest and the molecule didn't hear it.

 

[Corsair 115]

There is a valid point raised by the OP, which is: What rules and procedures should be in place to deal with a case of an elected representative who is unable to fulfill the responsibilities of their position due to a medical condition or for other reason? It's a legitimate question.

What's the answer? I'm not sure. It does not seem unreasonable to me to say that if an elected representative is going to be unable to fulfill their responsibilities for an extended period then their constituents are not being well served. But that then raises questions such as what constitutes an extended period? Three months? Six months? A year? What should be the manner of replacement? A new election? An appointee? If the absence is not permanent, how long should a replacement be able to serve in the other person's stead? Or should an extended period of incapacitation mean the original person once removed cannot return to office in that term?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Here's a mental model that might help explain my views. (The toxic sludge in Ghostbusters would have worked too.)

Think of the general population as a vat of water sitting on a stove, with each molecule representing a person. The vat contains hot molecules that are on the verge of becoming steam, cold molecules on the verge of freezing, and molecules at every temperature gradient in between. Now I'm going to turn up the flame just a teeny bit, warming the entire vat slightly. No molecule is immune; they all sit in the vat; they don't float in space. The hottest molecules become steam.

Of course, the hottest molecules represent people who are worked up and who have a propensity for violence for whatever reason -- insanity and/or political fervor. It's a given that such people exist.

People who engage in incendiary rhetoric, such as Gifford's opponent Jesse Kelly, AZ governor Jan Brewer, and others, turned up the heat. And they did so in what was already an over-heated political climate, that being Arizona.

People are not molecules and there are a lot more variables than just a fire in this case.

If there was an explosion in a locked room that had a live hand grenade with the pin pulled inside it then one would make the logical conclusion that the grenade was the cause of the explosion. But if I told you that I took that grenade out of the room before the explosion then you would have to look elsewhere for the cause of the explosion (no matter how unlikely the remaining options were) wouldn't you?

In this case people assumed that the political rhetoric was the grenade when in reality it turns out that there was no evidence of that grenade being in the room at all. Instead there was a second grenade hidden in the corner that people didn't see at first.

Occams razor, while usually a good starting point, isn't always the best conclusion after all of the evidence has been looked at.

 

[fishbob]

You didn't mention that he was your Representative and you didn't point out that as your Rep he was the third worse following Conyers. Pardon me for noticing your omissions. I'm clearly not a mind reader because if I were I'd be a million dollars richer right now.

By omissions, you clearly mean 99.9999999% of everything. Pardon me for focusing on a point of comparison.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

By omissions, you clearly mean 99.9999999% of everything. Pardon me for focusing on a point of comparison.

99.99999999%? Did you fail math in school? I didn't know that you were in Alaska and there's no reason for me to think that you were, so that's 50% right there and the other 50% is 100% factually correct. He is third and you did not say why you skipped over #2. You're lucky I apologized to you for not not knowing something that by all rights I shouldn't have known to begin with. I won't make that mistake with you again.

 

[jj]

And from what we actually DO know, this "heat" had absolutely nothing to do with Loughner's actions.

Actually we don't know that.

We know he was seriously mentally ill, but we do not know that he was never exposed to the '2nd amendment remedy' rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric that is very well and truly established to influence the unwell.

 

[tyr_13]

Actually we don't know that.

We know he was seriously mentally ill, but we do not know that he was never exposed to the '2nd amendment remedy' rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric that is very well and truly established to influence the unwell.

Yes, we do. He damn well told us why he did it, and even if it had somehow influenced him it still wasn't the cause and is therefore irrelevant.

'2nd Amendment remedy' rhetoric is deplorable even though it didn't have a damn thing to do with this incident. This incident is deplorable even though the rhetoric didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[varwoche]

Actually we don't know that.

We know he was seriously mentally ill, but we do not know that he was never exposed to the '2nd amendment remedy' rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric that is very well and truly established to influence the unwell.

I just don't get why skeptics are making these absolute statements (such as the post you replied to) -- portraying things in black and white and in so doing exaggerating their knowledge -- rather than deal with the shades of grey, or potential thereof, that comprise reality.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, we do. He damn well told us why he did it, and even if it had somehow influenced him it still wasn't the cause and is therefore irrelevant.

'2nd Amendment remedy' rhetoric is deplorable even though it didn't have a damn thing to do with this incident. This incident is deplorable even though the rhetoric didn't have anything to do with it.

I have a feeling that your post will be ignored. As will all the other ones talking about interviews with Loughner's friends and families which back up the fact that GOP rhetoric had nothing to do with the assassination attempt.

 

[jj]

Yes, we do. He damn well told us why he did it, and even if it had somehow influenced him it still wasn't the cause and is therefore irrelevant.

Sorry, if such a thing happened (and it is hypothetical), then it DID influence him, and thereby IS part of the cause.

Your attempts to exculpate some of the GOP's call for armed rebellion is noted.

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry, if such a thing happened (and it is hypothetical), then it DID influence him, and thereby IS part of the cause.

Your attempts to exculpate some of the GOP's call for armed rebellion is noted.

His breakfast influenced him too if that's the definition of influenced you're going to go with. I'm not so much interested in that, as it doesn't matter, as in what caused it. Video games, movies, books, clouds, color combinations, influence people.

And accusing me of 'exculpating' the GOP (and others) inflammatory rhetoric is laughable as I've already said that the rhetoric is deplorable.

 

[RandFan]

I support Gabby.

I'm not moved by the outrage of the OP.