NationStates

The Fascist American Empire wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-deny-pregnant-rep-tammy-duckworth-proxy-vote/story?id=26915859

So basically, a Democratic Senator, who had lost both her legs while serving in Iraq, and has been warned by her doctor to not travel to Washington at this stage of her pregnancy, asked her party if she could vote by proxy. Now, this is not a bill/potential law, nor is it a Constitutional Amendment, but rather who will be the new majority leader in the Congress. Her own party's answer? "No."

Think about this for a minute: A Senator, who lost her legs in battle, is asking if she can just ask somebody to deliver her vote for her. Essentially she's asking for maternity leave. And her party, not those "evil, woman-hating, racist Republicans" but the Democrats, deny her that. What the heck are they thinking? Last time I checked, the Left was all about women's equality, women's services (including maternity leave), and all sorts of women's issues. So, this just seems a little backwards to me. If anybody here feels that they can explain it, please feel free to do so. Please.

Icrum wrote:

The Fascist American Empire wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-deny-pregnant-rep-tammy-duckworth-proxy-vote/story?id=26915859

So basically, a Democratic Senator, who had lost both her legs while serving in Iraq, and has been warned by her doctor to not travel to Washington at this stage of her pregnancy, asked her party if she could vote by proxy. Now, this is not a bill/potential law, nor is it a Constitutional Amendment, but rather who will be the new majority leader in the Congress. Her own party's answer? "No."

Think about this for a minute: A Senator, who lost her legs in battle, is asking if she can just ask somebody to deliver her vote for her. Essentially she's asking for maternity leave. And her party, not those "evil, woman-hating, racist Republicans" but the Democrats, deny her that. What the heck are they thinking? Last time I checked, the Left was all about women's equality, women's services (including maternity leave), and all sorts of women's issues. So, this just seems a little backwards to me. If anybody here feels that they can explain it, please feel free to do so. Please.

Most politicians are corrupt. They just want what's in it for them. So denying someone a potential vote somehow helps them. I think that's stupid and that they should be dealt with accordingly.

Meowfoundland wrote:Tammy Duckworth is a representative, not a senator. Proxy voting is against the caucus rules. If they gave a proxy vote to her, why wouldn't they then have to give proxy votes to anyone else?

Conserative Morality wrote:What the hell is the rationale behind this?

Meowfoundland wrote:Tammy Duckworth is a representative, not a senator. Proxy voting is against the caucus rules. If they gave a proxy vote to her, why wouldn't they then have to give proxy votes to anyone else?

proxy voting is explicitly against caucus rules

Conserative Morality wrote:What the hell is the rationale behind this?

The Orson Empire wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:What the hell is the rationale behind this?

Well, the U.S. government isn't really known for being rational or logical....

Tubbsalot wrote:

proxy voting is explicitly against caucus rules

Yup, there it is, right at the beginning of the third paragraph. That's probably why, don't you think? It's explicitly forbidden, and they don't want to go to the effort of changing it? Lazy, but understandable?

No, the democrats hate women, and hate war heroes, and they also hate themselves and don't want their own members to vote. This is the only reasonable explanation.

Norstal wrote:

The Orson Empire wrote:Well, the U.S. government isn't really known for being rational or logical....

Or you know, party politics.

Pimps Inc wrote:

Norstal wrote:Or you know, party politics.

Or anything,apart from burgers and obesity.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Is this thread already dead? You'd think that such an issue would be exploding on NS.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:So basically, a Democratic Representative, who had lost both her legs while serving in Iraq, and has been warned by her doctor to not travel to Washington at this stage of her pregnancy, asked her party if she could vote by proxy. Now, this is not a bill/potential law, nor is it a Constitutional Amendment, but rather who will be the new majority leader in the Congress. Her own party's answer? "No."

Think about this for a minute: A Representative, who lost her legs in battle, is asking if she can just ask somebody to deliver her vote for her. Essentially she's asking for maternity leave. And her own party, not those "evil, woman-hating, racist Republicans" but the Democrats, deny her that. What the heck are they thinking? Last time I checked, the Left was all about women's equality, women's services (including maternity leave), and all sorts of women's issues. So, this just seems a little backwards to me. If anybody here feels that they can explain it, please feel free to do so. Please.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:
Yup, there it is, right at the beginning of the third paragraph. That's probably why, don't you think? It's explicitly forbidden, and they don't want to go to the effort of changing it? Lazy, but understandable?

No, the democrats hate women, and hate war heroes, and they also hate themselves and don't want their own members to vote. This is the only reasonable explanation.

If I openly agree, I'll probably be pummeled.

I agree 100% with you I'm just scared to say so.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Is this thread already dead? You'd think that such an issue would be exploding on NS.

Pimps Inc wrote:NS?No one else?
Wow.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Is this thread already dead? You'd think that such an issue would be exploding on NS.

Ifreann wrote:I'd also like to note that "legless" is a rather tasteless way to refer to someone actually lacking legs, which only highlights your complete lack of respect for this Rep. Duckworth.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I'd also like to note that "legless" is a rather tasteless way to refer to someone actually lacking legs, which only highlights your complete lack of respect for this Rep. Duckworth.

I assumed she was just pissed, so keeping her vote away seemed like a good idea...