I was raised to honor and take seriously duty, responsibility, and accepting nothing less from others.That actually used to be NORMAL and those who ignored or shirked their duties and/or responsibilities were looked down on, condemned, and found wanting!
Frankly, I have to wonder about YOU, because you can't or refuse to understand the very simple, basic points I have made. WHY? Because you keep throwing GOD into a secular conversation and GOD's word, in the BIBLE, upholds my point of view, vis-a-vis duty and responsibility.
“You weren’t part of the small hectoring, un/illeducated group last night and IF my post led you to imagine that I was accusing you of doing the same, I’m sorry that I wasn’t more specific/clear about that.”
No worries. I saw how things were getting heated on the subject last night and decided I would be smart not to chime in. I certainly have had more than my share of heated arguments on this forum and am trying to temper that because it is unproductive and we are on the same team (with very rare exceptions).
“I was raised to honor and take seriously duty, responsibility, and accepting nothing less from others.That actually used to be NORMAL and those who ignored or shirked their duties and/or responsibilities were looked down on, condemned, and found wanting!”
That’s a very good point. I think if Daines chose to be at the vote regardless, it would send a very strong message on how important it is. However, I think the watershed is whether his vote is going to be needed in order to get the confirmation done.
There are a number of options to be sure his vote counts. You’ve mentioned some. If there is any chance his vote will be required (which I think it will not) I believe Senate rules would allow him to fly back from the wedding and announce what he intended to vote even if he missed the roll call.
Life in politics and the military have in common the challenges of balance between job duties and family duties. I admire people such as yourself who are willing and able to make great personal sacrifices out of principle. But I also believe we have to leave some room for a man’s personal choice in a situation like this.
I would have liked to see him announce that his daughter is being married Saturday, he needs help fulfilling his familial and senatorial duties simultaneously, but also make it clear that if his vote is needed he is willing to miss his own daughter’s wedding. That would have been a commendable way to announce it.
“Because you keep throwing GOD into a secular conversation and GOD’s word, in the BIBLE, upholds my point of view, vis-a-vis duty and responsibility.”
I assume that most people on this forum defer to the authority of the Bible. I realize that not everyone does, AND, more importantly, not everyone agrees on how to apply the Bible. So I’m not meaning to beat you over the head with it. My point about Christ attending a wedding though is simply to advocate that a wedding is very meaningful so that it is preferable to not have to choose between two competing duties. Ideally we can fulfill both kinds.
The Democrats basically started a war on this nomination (if not before it). So your analogy is valid. Our senators have a sacred duty to defend our liberties. Just try to keep in mind that the ability to celebrate a wedding is one of the reasons for fighting this war. So, to me for Daines AND other senators and the president to seek to make sure the wedding is not disrupted is something to put in the plus column.
You’ve got some valid points, and I in no way intend to demean you or your position on what Daines’ duty is. Hopefully we can respectfully disagree because we are on the same side of this battle.