Quote from: Fagcicle on September 12, 2015, 08:42:37 PM

I fail to see the point?

It's in very poor taste. Like showing the number of black Congressmen voting for gun control or something like that.

Not especially.

At least with the image in the OP, it's showing that despite overwhelmingly voting with Democrats on almost every issue (Especially Schumer, who's slated to take over in the Leadership), several of the members are voting how they are due to their religious affiliation.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 13, 2015, 10:33:35 AM

several of the members are voting how they are due to their religious affiliation.

Or maybe they just oppose the deal?

And to be honest, I don't blame Jewish senators for not wanting to be diplomatic in a nuclear deal with an aggressively anti-Semitic rogue state.

Religious affiliation should not be a viable reason for any vote, good or bad, on any bill.

That's for either party, by the way. And yes, I would be saying the same if a Muslim Senator voted on a bill to make pork our national animal, etc.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 13, 2015, 10:33:35 AM

several of the members are voting how they are due to their religious affiliation.

This assumption, tinged in racism, is exactly the problem. They're defining each person's vote based on a presumed religious bias when in reality they are probably just opposed to it.

Schumer's base of support is New York City and Long Island - coming from someone who is an upstate New Yorker, there is almost zero support for the man here outside of Albany and a few liberal bastions (A couple of the larger, Western New York cities). New York City and Long Island are also strong centers of the Jewish population for New York.

It is no different than a Miami Representative voting no on opening the door to Cuba, a city that is full of Cuban refugees. Schumer is well aware that voting for a deal with the Iranians is going to cut off his biggest base of support, which is not something an incoming Minority/Majority leader wants to do - lose support from his home state (See: Eric Cantor).

This Article explains it better, discerning the difference between the two New York Senators

“It came down to where their political bases are,” a Democratic insider involved in New York politics said. “For Chuck, this is all about who sent him to the State Assembly and who sends him to the Senate every six years, and this means Orthodox black hats.”

Gillibrand, on the other hand, relies on a coalition of upstate, suburban and union voters, the insider noted. She may be more focused on not alienating liberals who strongly support Obama.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 13, 2015, 10:43:01 AM

Religious affiliation should not be a viable reason for any vote, good or bad, on any bill.

I agree in principle, but I'm rather more concerned with the consequences. If the Iran nuclear deal fell through because of a bunch of Islamaphobic Jewish senators, it would still result in the (assumed) positive consequence of the deal not taking place.

Elaborate.

The difference between that and your example is that it'd be utterly fucking stupid to make the pig America's national animal.

Based on the amount of stuff we deep fry in bacon...

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 13, 2015, 11:20:31 AM

Elaborate.

Let's say you vote for something stupid for a stupid reason.

Let's say you vote for something stupid for a good reason.

Let's say you vote for something good for a stupid reason.

I'd take the third option each and every time.

Abstain.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 13, 2015, 11:24:42 AM

Abstain.

Which then misses out the possibility of a good consequence for a stupid reason.

I'd rather someone abstain due to not being able to vote without their religious affiliation being a role, then have them vote as such.

Just my personal preference.