You know how they say a pic is worth a thousand words?

Thread starter #1

Robert28

Senior Member
Well, here’s a pic for you. You can’t trust ANYONE anymore. The evidence speaks for itself.

B3817108-3F00-4F02-A9D7-6C954B1AD608.png
 
Is the photo in your OP recent or is it from February like the above attachments?
I'm seeing them thanking him for listening in February.
 

dwhee87

Senior Member
If you were (or are) in a district that is represented by a politician that is on the other side of the ideological fence, is it wrong for you to want to express your opinions to said politician? If they are his constituents, are they not entitled to a discussion?

Just because he's taken a picture or met with them does not make him a 'traitor to the cause'. We continually proclaim we want our representatives to 'listen to the voters'. But the first time a pic comes up of one doing that, we throw him under a bus and back over him a few times?

What is his voting record? I'll base my opinion on that. If he's voting for bills that infringe on my 2A rights, then I'll agree with the OP. I will not make that decision based on a photo and a tweet.
 
If you were (or are) in a district that is represented by a politician that is on the other side of the ideological fence, is it wrong for you to want to express your opinions to said politician? If they are his constituents, are they not entitled to a discussion?

Just because he's taken a picture or met with them does not make him a 'traitor to the cause'. We continually proclaim we want our representatives to 'listen to the voters'. But the first time a pic comes up of one doing that, we throw him under a bus and back over him a few times?

What is his voting record? I'll base my opinion on that. If he's voting for bills that infringe on my 2A rights, then I'll agree with the OP. I will not make that decision based on a photo and a tweet.
^^^This.
 
There is a very valuable lesson in this thread for RW, BobbyG and AlanArthur if they have the suitable grey matter to figure it out.
 
If you were (or are) in a district that is represented by a politician that is on the other side of the ideological fence, is it wrong for you to want to express your opinions to said politician? If they are his constituents, are they not entitled to a discussion?

Just because he's taken a picture or met with them does not make him a 'traitor to the cause'. We continually proclaim we want our representatives to 'listen to the voters'. But the first time a pic comes up of one doing that, we throw him under a bus and back over him a few times?

What is his voting record? I'll base my opinion on that. If he's voting for bills that infringe on my 2A rights, then I'll agree with the OP. I will not make that decision based on a photo and a tweet.

In Spades.
 
Well here are his own words and thoughts. It looks like to me he's open to negotiation and has warmed up to the ideal of Red flag laws. You be the judge.


 
Thread starter #19

Robert28

Senior Member
The man has RESPECT for the his voters and the American Voters. He is mature enough to listen to both sides and explain he stance on the issue. He is doing what a politician should do for their district.
Not when the opposing side wants to strip you of a constitutional right. There should never be a discussion or “being mature enough to listen” to the other side when that’s their stance. My rights from God aren’t up for debate nor discussion. End of story.
 

Slewfoot

Senior Member
He is definitely open to Red Flag laws. He says so on his FB page and the reaction by constituents is as you might think. I hope he will listen to those who elected him. Rick Scott in FL doubled down on RFL last week in a cocky interview.
 
Last edited:
Top