• frazw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s called having your cake and eating it too.

    He gets to claim he is against government spending but also protects his voters with relief money and he can vote against the funding because he knows it will very likely pass. If there is no disaster he can claim to be fiscally responsible, and if there is one, he can say that the voters wanted it so they should get it.

    I say funds like this should be assigned according to a priority based on these votes. His district would get the scraps and leftovers if anything and they could squarely blame him for it. It would stop these guys paying politics with things that directly impact their voters lives or get voted out.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      25 minutes ago

      As much as that would be apropos, it’d also unfairly hurt people who didn’t vote for this asshat.

      • frazw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 minutes ago

        And therein lies the crux of the matter. People like him know they can get away with it because good people will do good things and allow him to make his stand without suffering any consequences for it. I’m not really suggesting those voters should suffer the consequences of his actions , but he certainly wouldn’t be in office long if they did