Nevada tea party Republican: ‘Yeah, I would’ vote to bring back slavery

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    we keep thinking the tea party with ted cruz can't get worse then it does. so if the voters wanted him to jump off a bridge would he?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/...ican-yeah-i-would-vote-to-bring-back-slavery/
    A Republican Nevada state assemblyman said that he would vote for legislation in favor of slavery if his constituents wanted him to. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Jim Wheeler of Gardnerville, NV was speaking to the Storey County Republican Party when he made the remarks last August, although they are only now coming to light.

    “If that’s what they wanted, I’d have to hold my nose, I’d have to bite my tongue and they’d probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah, if that’s what the citizens of the, if that’s what the constituency wants that elected me, that’s what they elected me for,” he said. “That’s what a republic is about.”

    Now, Wheeler said to the Sun, “liberal operatives” are spreading the video in an effort to smear him.

    The assemblyman was referring to a blog post by a conservative commentator named Chuck Muth, who asked during Wheeler’s candidacy, “(W)hat if those citizens decided they want to, say, bring back slavery? Hey, if that’s what the citizens want, right Jim?”

    Wheeler told the audience of Republicans, “yeah I would.”

    The remarks have kicked off a firestorm with Republicans and Democrats alike rushing to denounce Wheeler, who rode the 2010 wave of tea party fervor into his spot on the state assembly.

    The Associated Press quoted a statement by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval that said, in part, “Assemblyman Wheeler’s comments are deeply offensive and have no place in our society. He should retract his remarks and apologize.”

    Watch video about this story, embedded below via CBS Channel 2, Reno:
     
  2. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #2
    I think this image represents the idea the Tea Party has about "doubling down on stupidity".


    [​IMG]
     
  3. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #3
    So you would rather have someone in office that does not represent the wishes of their constituents?

    The point he was making is that he is there to represent the people that elected him. Just like what Ted Cruz is doing for the people that elected him and just like what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing for the people that elected them.
     
  4. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #4

    What about those constituents that didn't vote for this guy nor share his views?
     
  5. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    yes that could be the point but is it really? did the GOP do the peoples wishes when 80% of the public wanted gun reregistration? Did they go by the people when they closed down the government?
    Why would you use slavery as an example?
     
  6. Jesla macrumors 6502

    Jesla

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee USA
    #6
    Majority rules...........how else could it work? It being a representative government.
     
  7. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #7

    When I took political science in college it was, "majority rules with protecting the rights of the minority".

    What you and that other guy are saying is to throw out the protections guaranteed to the minority and allowing barbarism back into this country?
     
  8. Jesla macrumors 6502

    Jesla

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee USA
    #8
    I asked a question. I didn't make a statement. So no that is NOT what I said.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    I certainly don't expect them to throw away their morals and values.

    If their constituency is so far removed from what they believe in, then they should expect to lose the next election ... not lose every shred of personal dignity that they have left.
     
  10. skottichan macrumors 6502a

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #10
    The majority has voted to restrict the rights of the minority, more than once. That's that the federal side is for, to protect the few from the needs of the many.


    (And in case you're wondering, I'm talking about anti-LGBT, Jim Crowe laws, anti-Civil Rights, anti-Woman, anti-Indiginous Peoples legislations)

    Most of the time, the Majority is too stupid to drink without sippy cups. This is why the people in charge should be better educated than the masses. I would give anything to move towards an intellectual Meritocracy.
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    Majority rules in elections.

    Once elected, representatives are free to think for themselves.

    While representatives may be accountable to voters, they are not beholden to them.
     
  12. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #12
    well unless they are doing the bidding of a backer of course.
     
  13. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #13
    Even if you ignore the moral ramifications, this guy is basically saying that he would completely disregard the U.S. Constitution if his constituents demanded it.
     
  14. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #14
    hey when did that ever stop a teabagger or GOP?
     
  15. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #15
    Sad when one of our representatives doesn't know the first thing about representative democracy.
     
  16. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #16
    If you think about it, that's the only way the Constitution can be amended: you have to want to disregard some part of it. It's a working document, not a holy scripture.

    For example, when the election of the President was changed, the writers of the 12th Amendment had to disregard Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, and draft a replacement.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Ditto for the 17th Amendment that changed how State Senators are elected.

    And while the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) didn't have to disregard much, the 21st (repealing Prohibition) had to utterly ignore the 18th in order to be effective.

    So I think any umbrage needs to consider the nature of the proposed amendment. Personally, I'd rather see a Representative resign the office than support legalized slavery, even if a majority of his constituents supported it.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    I would rather see a Representative stay in office, vote against it, and work to convince his constituents to change their opinions. That would be leadership.
     
  18. APlotdevice, Oct 29, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #18
    You are right in saying that the Constitution is not sacrosanct. However until and unless an amendment is passed through the support of the overwhelming majority, the Constitution as it is cannot be ignored. And considering that the Tea Party has often claimed to be protecting the Constitution, it would be a bit hypocritical for one of their own to question it.
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    Ah, the old "I vas just following orders!" excuse....
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Especially over something as abhorrent as slavery.
     
  21. AhmedFaisal, Oct 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  22. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #22
    The title of this thread should read "Yeah, I would" vote in the interest of my constituents. Poorly worded, but not particularly racist or anything.

    This is a non-story.
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Dang. Makes me wonder what he'd have to say in order to qualify as racist.
     
  24. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #24
    You're right, he's a racist terrorist. :rolleyes:

    He needs to say something racist for it to qualify as racist.
     
  25. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #25
    Maybe the title should read "Yeah I would vote in the interests of my constituents no matter how morally reprehensible their viewpoints are".

    "While I may have been elected to be a "leader" I am actually just a shill for mob rule."

    I fail to see how the failure of an elected official to understand how a representative democracy works is a "non story".
     

Share This Page