Pignorant said:

---

My brother-in-law's roommate is on Murkowski's staff.

Maybe I'll shoot him a text telling him how Texags feels.

---

I think it's obvious she doesn't really care what her constituents or anyone else thinks.

Same. Created a Twitter account a while back. Forgot about it and started Tweeting during this debacle. My knowledge of Twitter has been very limited up until now. What a cesspool.

Bo Darville said:

---

Pignorant said:

---

My brother-in-law's roommate is on Murkowski's staff.

Maybe I'll shoot him a text telling him how Texags feels.

---

I think it's obvious she doesn't really care what her constituents or anyone else thinks.

---

Her constituents voted her in on a write-in campaign after getting primaried. That is almost unheard of. Don't assume they are hard core conservative. Alaskan Bush People might actually be real.

Wait, is she a whale or a potato? Whale potato?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Wait, is she a whale or a potato? Whale potato?

---

A whale of a potato?

Burdizzo said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

Pignorant said:

---

My brother-in-law's roommate is on Murkowski's staff.

Maybe I'll shoot him a text telling him how Texags feels.

---

I think it's obvious she doesn't really care what her constituents or anyone else thinks.

---

Her constituents voted her in on a write-in campaign after getting primaried. That is almost unheard of. Don't assume they are hard core conservative. Alaskan Bush People might actually be real.

---

The Democrats in the state pretty much all voted for her, and her daddy was a popular governor so that got her enough Republican votes to win the general.

Apparently Murkowski isn't 100%?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-murkowski/u-s-republican-senator-murkowski-says-has-not-decided-final-kavanaugh-vote-idUSKCN1MF22Z?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is considered a key vote in whether or not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, said on Friday she had not made up her mind on what her final vote would be.

---

Bo Darville said:

---

Pignorant said:

---

My brother-in-law's roommate is on Murkowski's staff.

Maybe I'll shoot him a text telling him how Texags feels.

---

I think it's obvious she doesn't really care what her constituents or anyone else thinks.

---

Not having influence on politicians frustrates me, but having a politician that doesn't care about what her constituents or anyone else thinks is refreshing in my opinion. (I am talking in general and not about this decision specifically) I want someone to vote for what they think is right and just, and not vote for or against an issue because they got 4k more phone calls for one side over the other. Or worse, because some political group has pledged $1 million to her campaign if she votes a certain way.

Our great Nation is a representative democracy. We vote for people to make decisions and work the political process for us. If enough people in Alaska are upset with her about this vote, she will not be reelected in 2022.

Disagree. In representive democracy our elected officials' voting should reflect the views of the majority of those they represent regardless of their personal feelings. Obviously they need to look a little further than a handful of angry phone calls and twitter responses though.

The senate is designed to be somewhat resistant to the whims of the people. They are intended to represent the states, and they have six year terms instead of two year terms for a reason.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Same. Created a Twitter account a while back. Forgot about it and started Tweeting during this debacle. My knowledge of Twitter has been very limited up until now. What a cesspool.

---

Twitter handle please?

Thanks, following you now.

Quote:

---

she will not be reelected in 2022.

---

Come 2022, the Alaska voters (or any voters in enough numbers) will remember the BK vote.

Prognightmare said:

---

Thanks, following you now.

---

Can you imagine the shi* storm that would be brewing if that was a male senator with Merky rather then whatever that is with her in that picture

Rumors flying that Murk is wavering now...

No kidding

FireAg said:

---

Rumors flying that Murk is wavering now...

---

Rumors where?

Gigem_94 said:

---

Disagree. In representive democracy our elected officials' voting should reflect the views of the majority of those they represent regardless of their personal feelings. Obviously they need to look a little further than a handful of angry phone calls and twitter responses though.

---

I understand your thought and respect it, but what you are describing is not a representative democracy. You are wanting someone to vote what gets them reelected, which is closer to a true democracy. In that case, we could have a true democracy and everyone vote on every bill up for the floor. But then why have politicians at all? We could all just vote online, no politician needed.

The reason we have a representative democracy was because the Founding Fathers determined (and I believe rightly so) that not every person could keep up with all the going ons and the issues that were to be voted on. So the representative democracy was designed to have politicians make decision for us, and then our input was to vote for their reelection or not. The system was never designed for the general public to have day to day input. However, here we are. When I vote for my senators or representative, I want someone to think for themselves. Bills are written so complicated they are not black and white. I want a politician that in the long run will vote what is good for the country, even if it is not good for his/her constituents or most importantly, would vote for something even if it was against the stance held by their political party. Someone who thinks for themselves, and then I will judge them on their performance with my vote.

One might not agree with Senator Murkowski or Senator Manchin, but I respect the fact they are standing their grounds for what they believe in despite HUGE political pressure.

Bo Darville said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Rumors flying that Murk is wavering now...

---

Rumors where?

---

Linbaugh just mentioned it on his program as well.

DivotUSMC said:

---

Gigem_94 said:

---

Disagree. In representive democracy our elected officials' voting should reflect the views of the majority of those they represent regardless of their personal feelings. Obviously they need to look a little further than a handful of angry phone calls and twitter responses though.

---

I understand your thought and respect it, but what you are describing is not a representative democracy. You are wanting someone to vote what gets them reelected, which is closer to a true democracy. In that case, we could have a true democracy and everyone vote on every bill up for the floor. But then why have politicians at all? We could all just vote online, no politician needed.

The reason we have a representative democracy was because the Founding Fathers determined (and I believe rightly so) that not every person could keep up with all the going ons and the issues that were to be voted on. So the representative democracy was designed to have politicians make decision for us, and then our input was to vote for their reelection or not. The system was never decisioned for the general public to have day to day input. However, here we are. When I vote for my senators or representative, I want someone to think for themselves. Bills are written so complicated they are not black and white. I want a politician that in the long run will vote what is good for the country, even if it is not good for his/her constituents or most importantly, would vote for something even if it was the stance held by their political party. Someone who thinks for themselves, and then I will judge them on their performance with my vote.

One might not agree with Senator Murkowski or Senator Manchin, but I respect the fact they are standing their grounds for what they believe in despite HUGE political pressure.

---

The point of elections is so we can change who governs us if we are unhappy with them. I agree, the population is too dumb to draft or pass good laws, but we also vote out representatives that pass laws we don't like.
Otherwise we might as well still be ruled by bloodline.

Rumors of her waivering are just lip service. She just avoiding an angry mob and doesn't want republicans beating down her door before the vote.

Yes, there have been a few on Twitter...

The caller on right now with Rush has a great idea.

Gigem_94 said:

---

Rumors of her waivering are just lip service. She just avoiding an angry mob and doesn't want republicans beating down her door before the vote.

---

WV is very pro kav. How does Alaska look? Could she be getting hammered by actual consituants?

How the hell is Murkowski under fire from Alaska? She is normally under fire from the right. They primaried her a while back and she won as a write in

Your right the states would have a lot more control of what their senators were doing and who they were voting for if not for the 17th Amendment, however the senators were still appointed for 6 years. From what I have read, each state had its own way to recall their senator, but seniority in the senate has (and does) mean power, and changing someone out all the time meant the state missed out having senior members.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

what is this? I must have missed something.

They're questioning his tempermament now since the rapey school boy fell through.

**** em. We have cloture. All over but the voting.