Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (22012)	9/8/2008 3:32:03 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

"Why would you say it's a trap?" I don't mean to waste time by repeating myself, (but haven't I answered that question about a half dozen times already?) I say that because, a lot of the time, it is a political trap. A large part of the time some of the legislative vehicles that are floated around are IN NO WAY serious attempts at legislation, but rather are merely cynical bits of political gamesmanship --- attempts to get one's opponent to register a vote against something with a name like the "Mom and Apple Pie Bill". And if a legislator doesn't vote on the inconsequential or 'phonied-up' attempt at legislative trickery, the legislator will then face a bunch of political ads run against him claiming that he "didn't show up to vote".... By voting present it's possible for a legislator to show that they showed-up for the actual vote (were not absent), but also still be smart enough to not gulp down the poisoned bit of bait. (At least... that how it sometimes works. Sometimes --- depending mostly on if you think the piece of proposed legislative language was 'serious' or not --- voting 'present' can fairly be called a 'dodge'.) In any event: the tactic is more popular in a variety of parliamentary-influenced systems (in some US State legislatures it is very common, others not so...) then some other types.