Do you pay attention to media polls? If so, why?

[BasicGreatGuy]

All wisdom can be found in truly good pepperoni.

But seriously? There are issues where people's opinions matter. Like good pizza. Then there are issues where one should never, ever make a decision under the influence of other people's opinions. Like politics. Listen to different sides, seek out different angles, sure. But if you're sitting on the bandwagon at the end of the day just because all the cool kids are there, all it means is you can't think for yourself. Polls are enablers, I despise them.

I agree. I see it as willing manipulation as well. It is a shame that so many who like to think of themselves a politically astute, are some of the worst offenders, when it comes to the sheep poll herding. They don't even seem to realize they are being manipulated.

How many times a day are we subtly reminded to conform to the herd? Whether its an ad for toothpaste, a history class or a political poll, the messages are so pervasive I'm not sure any of us are completely aware of all the ways we're manipulated. We're too accustomed to it.

It helps you to see the manipulation, when you are anal retentive. Not that I know anything about that.

I think we have all fallen victim at one time or another.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Politicians who base their actions on polls, are political whores. Their actions should be based on the Constitution, not the mental masturbation sighs of Suzy and John Q. Public, who just participated in a political poll.

I am not talking about being obtuse just so you can say you were the only one being obtuse. I am talking about standing on principle, instead of popular opinion. You want mob rule?

You asked in the OP if people pay attention to polls and why. You didn't ask about principal or philosophy or law.

They "why" of it all falls under philosophy of some kind. I am addressing the core issue, instead of the cotton candy of feelings.

 

[Toro]

Politicians who base their actions on polls, are political whores. Their actions should be based on the Constitution, not the mental masturbation sighs of Suzy and John Q. Public, who just participated in a political poll.

I am not talking about being obtuse just so you can say you were the only one being obtuse. I am talking about standing on principle, instead of popular opinion. You want mob rule?

You asked in the OP if people pay attention to polls and why. You didn't ask about principal or philosophy or law.

They "why" of it all falls under philosophy of some kind. I am addressing the core issue, instead of the cotton candy of feelings.

No, not really.

Would you be in favor then if Congress rammed through the current healthcare legislation? It seems that the polls are against it. What you are saying is that Obama and the Democrats should ignore popular sentiment and just do whatever they think is right? That is your idea of leadership?

 

[goldcatt]

You asked in the OP if people pay attention to polls and why. You didn't ask about principal or philosophy or law.

They "why" of it all falls under philosophy of some kind. I am addressing the core issue, instead of the cotton candy of feelings.

No, not really.

Would you be in favor then if Congress rammed through the current healthcare legislation? It seems that the polls are against it. What you are saying is that Obama and the Democrats should ignore popular sentiment and just do whatever they think is right? That is your idea of leadership?

I can't speak for BGG, but that's exactly what I think. And the same for the Republicans when they are in control. Hopefully some day for a new party when people finally get too sick of the ones we have now. We elect them to lead, they lead according to what they think is right, and by their fruits shall ye judge them.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You asked in the OP if people pay attention to polls and why. You didn't ask about principal or philosophy or law.

They "why" of it all falls under philosophy of some kind. I am addressing the core issue, instead of the cotton candy of feelings.

No, not really.

Would you be in favor then if Congress rammed through the current healthcare legislation? It seems that the polls are against it. What you are saying is that Obama and the Democrats should ignore popular sentiment and just do whatever they think is right? That is your idea of leadership?

The elected took an oath to the Constitution, not to be appeasers to the employers. The Constitution comes first. If the employers are making their voice heard, and said voice is within the confines of the Constitution, said elected should listen, in my opinion.

I don't care about polls. I don't care about being popular or liked. I care about the Constitution. When it comes to the governance of this Republic, that is the bottom line for me.

I want the Congress and President to follow the Constitution, not create legislation based on their own wants and desires, or what the polls say.

 

[goldcatt]

They "why" of it all falls under philosophy of some kind. I am addressing the core issue, instead of the cotton candy of feelings.

No, not really.

Would you be in favor then if Congress rammed through the current healthcare legislation? It seems that the polls are against it. What you are saying is that Obama and the Democrats should ignore popular sentiment and just do whatever they think is right? That is your idea of leadership?

The elected took an oath to the Constitution, not to be appeasers to the employers. The Constitution comes first. If the employers are making their voice heard, and said voice is within the confines of the Constitution, said elected should listen, in my opinion.

I don't care about polls. I don't care about being popular or liked. I care about the Constitution. When it comes to the governance of this Republic, that is the bottom line for me.

I want the Congress and President to follow the Constitution, not create legislation based on their own wants and desires, or what the polls say.

The Constitution gives a lot of room for different policy though. I agree the employees should listen to the employers and make their concerns a factor in their decision making, but the most valid concern may be brought up by only a single constituent while entire mobs repeat slogans without really understanding what they mean.

If the employers disagree with the leadership they hired, they get the option of firing every election day - the only poll that matters.

 

[Toro]

A constitution is a set of principals enshrined in law by which all other laws are set within its confines. The fact that politicians may follow polls as a guide for supporting or denying legislation does not mean it violates the constitution.

 

[Maple]

Yes, I do, because they do.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No, not really.

Would you be in favor then if Congress rammed through the current healthcare legislation? It seems that the polls are against it. What you are saying is that Obama and the Democrats should ignore popular sentiment and just do whatever they think is right? That is your idea of leadership?

The elected took an oath to the Constitution, not to be appeasers to the employers. The Constitution comes first. If the employers are making their voice heard, and said voice is within the confines of the Constitution, said elected should listen, in my opinion.

I don't care about polls. I don't care about being popular or liked. I care about the Constitution. When it comes to the governance of this Republic, that is the bottom line for me.

I want the Congress and President to follow the Constitution, not create legislation based on their own wants and desires, or what the polls say.

The Constitution gives a lot of room for different policy though. I agree the employees should listen to the employers and make their concerns a factor in their decision making, but the most valid concern may be brought up by only a single constituent while entire mobs repeat slogans without really understanding what they mean.

If the employers disagree with the leadership they hired, they get the option of firing every election day - the only poll that matters.

That is true. I am not saying that politicians should ignore their employers. I am saying that their focus should be to the Constitution first, and then to the employers, so long as the desires of the employers are commiserate with the Constitution.

Part of the problem has been that far too many employers have hired employees based on who they think can win, instead of who is right for the job. They have hired people, without comparing their stances to the Constitution. They have held their nose because of the stink and then complain about the results. That kind of thinking is illogical and emotions based.

 

[goldcatt]

The elected took an oath to the Constitution, not to be appeasers to the employers. The Constitution comes first. If the employers are making their voice heard, and said voice is within the confines of the Constitution, said elected should listen, in my opinion.

I don't care about polls. I don't care about being popular or liked. I care about the Constitution. When it comes to the governance of this Republic, that is the bottom line for me.

I want the Congress and President to follow the Constitution, not create legislation based on their own wants and desires, or what the polls say.

The Constitution gives a lot of room for different policy though. I agree the employees should listen to the employers and make their concerns a factor in their decision making, but the most valid concern may be brought up by only a single constituent while entire mobs repeat slogans without really understanding what they mean.

If the employers disagree with the leadership they hired, they get the option of firing every election day - the only poll that matters.

That is true. I am not saying that politicians should ignore their employers. I am saying that their focus should be to the Constitution first, and then to the employers, so long as the desires of the employers are commiserate with the Constitution.

Part of the problem has been that far too many employers have hired employees based on who they think can win, instead of who is right for the job. They have hired people, without comparing their stances to the Constitution. They have held their nose because of the stink and then complain about the results. That kind of thinking is illogical and emotions based.

Guilty as charged.

On occasion anyway, when the alternative was simply too awful. Although I suspect we don't read the Constitution the same way. To me, it's a blueprint. Necessary, but not a guide for most day to day policy decisions.

 

[PeterS]

Are you one to pay attention to media polls? If so, why?

We're a representative democracy and our representatives are elected by majority and are heavily influenced by majority opinion. If we had any other form of government I wouldn't pay attention...

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The Constitution gives a lot of room for different policy though. I agree the employees should listen to the employers and make their concerns a factor in their decision making, but the most valid concern may be brought up by only a single constituent while entire mobs repeat slogans without really understanding what they mean.

If the employers disagree with the leadership they hired, they get the option of firing every election day - the only poll that matters.

That is true. I am not saying that politicians should ignore their employers. I am saying that their focus should be to the Constitution first, and then to the employers, so long as the desires of the employers are commiserate with the Constitution.

Part of the problem has been that far too many employers have hired employees based on who they think can win, instead of who is right for the job. They have hired people, without comparing their stances to the Constitution. They have held their nose because of the stink and then complain about the results. That kind of thinking is illogical and emotions based.

Guilty as charged.

On occasion anyway, when the alternative was simply too awful. Although I suspect we don't read the Constitution the same way. To me, it's a blueprint. Necessary, but not a guide for most day to day policy decisions.

As to day to day, it depends on which elected we are speaking of, and whether or not their actions cross over into the federal constitution.

For the sake of discussion in this thread, I am speaking of the employees in Washington, whose salary we pay. When it comes to that, I am very strict. As to the other, it depends on what the state constitution states etc.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Are you one to pay attention to media polls? If so, why?

We're a representative democracy and our representatives are elected by majority and are heavily influenced by majority opinion. If we had any other form of government I wouldn't pay attention...

You need or prefer to gauge your actions based on polls? The employees should be influenced first and foremost on what the Constitution states, not about getting re-elected, or bringing pork home to their state or trying to do a good ole boy favor for someone etc.

How about being your own man? How about voting principle instead of voting popular for the sake of public sentiment?

I think we should repeal the XVII Amendment, but that is for another thread.

 

[goldcatt]

That is true. I am not saying that politicians should ignore their employers. I am saying that their focus should be to the Constitution first, and then to the employers, so long as the desires of the employers are commiserate with the Constitution.

Part of the problem has been that far too many employers have hired employees based on who they think can win, instead of who is right for the job. They have hired people, without comparing their stances to the Constitution. They have held their nose because of the stink and then complain about the results. That kind of thinking is illogical and emotions based.

Guilty as charged.

On occasion anyway, when the alternative was simply too awful. Although I suspect we don't read the Constitution the same way. To me, it's a blueprint. Necessary, but not a guide for most day to day policy decisions.

As to day to day, it depends on which elected we are speaking of, and whether or not their actions cross over into the federal constitution.

For the sake of discussion in this thread, I am speaking of the employees in Washington, whose salary we pay. When it comes to that, I am very strict. As to the other, it depends on what the state constitution states etc.

I see it a bit differently. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the Constitution. But it's more of a set of boundaries for what they can and cannot do, not really a guide to what we should or should not do. A lot of incredibly stupid things are entirely constitutional. Deciding the should and should not is where most policy arguments come in.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Guilty as charged.

On occasion anyway, when the alternative was simply too awful. Although I suspect we don't read the Constitution the same way. To me, it's a blueprint. Necessary, but not a guide for most day to day policy decisions.

As to day to day, it depends on which elected we are speaking of, and whether or not their actions cross over into the federal constitution.

For the sake of discussion in this thread, I am speaking of the employees in Washington, whose salary we pay. When it comes to that, I am very strict. As to the other, it depends on what the state constitution states etc.

I see it a bit differently. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the Constitution. But it's more of a set of boundaries for what they can and cannot do, not really a guide to what we should or should not do. A lot of incredibly stupid things are entirely constitutional. Deciding the should and should not is where most policy arguments come in.

I am speaking as an employer. By that I mean I believe that the Constitution should be adjudicated in its proper context via the elected, SCOTUS, judges of the inferior courts, and indirectly you and I via the standards we employ, when picking the right employee. We are the check and balance. We are the final arbiters.

Yes, you are correct. Overall, the Constitution is about telling the federal government what it cannot do.

 

[goldcatt]

As to day to day, it depends on which elected we are speaking of, and whether or not their actions cross over into the federal constitution.

For the sake of discussion in this thread, I am speaking of the employees in Washington, whose salary we pay. When it comes to that, I am very strict. As to the other, it depends on what the state constitution states etc.

I see it a bit differently. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the Constitution. But it's more of a set of boundaries for what they can and cannot do, not really a guide to what we should or should not do. A lot of incredibly stupid things are entirely constitutional. Deciding the should and should not is where most policy arguments come in.

I am speaking as an employer. By that I mean I believe that the Constitution should be adjudicated in its proper context via the elected, SCOTUS, judges of the inferior courts, and indirectly you and I via the standards we employ, when picking the right employee. We are the check and balance. We are the final arbiters.

Yes, you are correct. Overall, the Constitution is about telling the federal government what it cannot do.

I see what you're saying here, but I guess my point is the choices we make and the leaders we elect aren't as closely controlled by the Constitution as you seem to indicate. There are wide ranges of choices within the constitutional framework, and those are the things most look at when deciding. If the requisite numbers vote to invade Canada, we can constitutionally invade Canada. The Constitution is not the end of Federal leadership and policy, it's the point of beginning.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I see it a bit differently. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the Constitution. But it's more of a set of boundaries for what they can and cannot do, not really a guide to what we should or should not do. A lot of incredibly stupid things are entirely constitutional. Deciding the should and should not is where most policy arguments come in.

I am speaking as an employer. By that I mean I believe that the Constitution should be adjudicated in its proper context via the elected, SCOTUS, judges of the inferior courts, and indirectly you and I via the standards we employ, when picking the right employee. We are the check and balance. We are the final arbiters.

Yes, you are correct. Overall, the Constitution is about telling the federal government what it cannot do.

I see what you're saying here, but I guess my point is the choices we make and the leaders we elect aren't as closely controlled by the Constitution as you seem to indicate. There are wide ranges of choices within the constitutional framework, and those are the things most look at when deciding. If the requisite numbers vote to invade Canada, we can constitutionally invade Canada. The Constitution is not the end of Federal leadership and policy, it's the point of beginning.

In my opinion, they are and should be, in regards to their authorship of and voting for or against legislation etc. Some of the things they do, are not strictly codified in the Constitution. Such is "office policy" etc.

I think that polls help promote the idea of "remote control" leadership. There is no such thing in this Republic. Our Republic was created to be hands on.

 

[goldcatt]

I am speaking as an employer. By that I mean I believe that the Constitution should be adjudicated in its proper context via the elected, SCOTUS, judges of the inferior courts, and indirectly you and I via the standards we employ, when picking the right employee. We are the check and balance. We are the final arbiters.

Yes, you are correct. Overall, the Constitution is about telling the federal government what it cannot do.

I see what you're saying here, but I guess my point is the choices we make and the leaders we elect aren't as closely controlled by the Constitution as you seem to indicate. There are wide ranges of choices within the constitutional framework, and those are the things most look at when deciding. If the requisite numbers vote to invade Canada, we can constitutionally invade Canada. The Constitution is not the end of Federal leadership and policy, it's the point of beginning.

In my opinion, they are and should be, in regards to their authorship of and voting for or against legislation etc. Some of the things they do, are not strictly codified in the Constitution. Such is "office policy" etc.

I think that polls help promote the idea of "remote control" leadership. There is no such thing in this Republic. Our Republic was created to be hands on.

I agree wholehartedly on your characterization of polls. The rest, we can agree to disagree....agreeably.

That, and it's getting late enough that my brain is turning to mush. Thank you for a great conversation.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I see what you're saying here, but I guess my point is the choices we make and the leaders we elect aren't as closely controlled by the Constitution as you seem to indicate. There are wide ranges of choices within the constitutional framework, and those are the things most look at when deciding. If the requisite numbers vote to invade Canada, we can constitutionally invade Canada. The Constitution is not the end of Federal leadership and policy, it's the point of beginning.

In my opinion, they are and should be, in regards to their authorship of and voting for or against legislation etc. Some of the things they do, are not strictly codified in the Constitution. Such is "office policy" etc.

I think that polls help promote the idea of "remote control" leadership. There is no such thing in this Republic. Our Republic was created to be hands on.

I agree wholehartedly on your characterization of polls. The rest, we can agree to disagree....agreeably.

That, and it's getting late enough that my brain is turning to mush. Thank you for a great conversation.

I enjoyed the conversation as well. Have a good evening gold.

 

[Terry]

I don't pay attention to any polls because they are all bogus. Even the so called notable ones. RNC/DNC/FNC/youfucking name it...they want a poll, hire a firm....of course the firm will create the poll to give the payer the info they desire...that way the firms fee goes up, more biz too. It's all Bullshit.