• idiomaddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    So we agree that Joe Lieberman voted against the interests of his constituents (the difference between the 1/3 and 2/3 of savings).

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree that Joe was listening to those constituents who wanted to keep their jobs. And, if the public would have given democrats more of a majority in the Senate he wouldn’t have been an issue.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So 25k people vs 3 million? That’s not called listening to your constituents. He had been a democrat until a few years before this and broke ranks because of the Iraq war, so his disagreement on this issue came as a surprise to many Connecticut voters.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s disappointing, as I haven’t said anything untrue, but it doesn’t seem to have an impact on you, so you’re probably correct that there’s no point in continuing. I would encourage you to read more about Joe Lieberman, though.

            • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              You seem to suppose an entire population has the same opinion you do. This is not the case. You are not logical but wish me to spend time in dialog. I’m going to block you due to persistent nonsense.