Paul Ryan Keeps Peddling Trickle Down Bullshit

[djAdvocate]

Nov 24, 2017 14:08:15 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 22, 2017 11:34:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

amen, brother.

furthermore, there is GENERALLY an independent on the ballot.  if independents VOTED INDEPENDENT, we would have an INDEPENDENT MAJORITY in Congress.  that would be a beautiful thing, right?

I think once on every ballot there isn't even a Democrat on the ballot. Just a Republican and a blank line. I could write someone in, but they would have to have a massive campaign for enough people to know to write that person in to beat the single candidate printed on the ballot.

Lisa Murakowski won her seat that way, but it is quite rare.

[thyme4change]

Nov 24, 2017 17:00:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 24, 2017 14:08:15 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think once on every ballot there isn't even a Democrat on the ballot. Just a Republican and a blank line. I could write someone in, but they would have to have a massive campaign for enough people to know to write that person in to beat the single candidate printed on the ballot.

Lisa Murakowski won her seat that way, but it is quite rare.

I heard that. It must have been some campaign. Half the people who are ON the ballot don't win. But to have enough people remember how to spell Murakowski and write it out in the booth is impressive!

[tallguy]

Nov 24, 2017 18:26:07 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 24, 2017 17:00:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Lisa Murakowski won her seat that way, but it is quite rare.

I heard that. It must have been some campaign. Half the people who are ON the ballot don't win. But to have enough people remember how to spell Murakowski and write it out in the booth is impressive!

She did have some advantages.  Her father had been the senator previously.  She was appointed in 2002 when he became governor.  She was re-elected in 2004, so was in office for eight years.  She got "primaried" by the Tea Party - Sarah Palin wing in 2010, losing by less than 2% of the vote.  After saying that numerous people had urged her to run as a write-in candidate, she won the 2010 election.  Impressive, yes, but she was not an unknown before.  

[djAdvocate]

Nov 24, 2017 18:38:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 24, 2017 18:26:07 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I heard that. It must have been some campaign. Half the people who are ON the ballot don't win. But to have enough people remember how to spell Murakowski and write it out in the booth is impressive!

She did have some advantages.  Her father had been the senator previously.  She was appointed in 2002 when he became governor.  She was re-elected in 2004, so was in office for eight years.  She got "primaried" by the Tea Party - Sarah Palin wing in 2010, losing by less than 2% of the vote.  After saying that numerous people had urged her to run as a write-in candidate, she won the 2010 election.  Impressive, yes, but she was not an unknown before.  

not to mention the fact that her Republican opponent was a whackadoodle of Aikinesque proportions.....

[tallguy]

Nov 24, 2017 19:36:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 24, 2017 18:38:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

She did have some advantages.  Her father had been the senator previously.  She was appointed in 2002 when he became governor.  She was re-elected in 2004, so was in office for eight years.  She got "primaried" by the Tea Party - Sarah Palin wing in 2010, losing by less than 2% of the vote.  After saying that numerous people had urged her to run as a write-in candidate, she won the 2010 election.  Impressive, yes, but she was not an unknown before.  

not to mention the fact that her Republican opponent was a whackadoodle of Aikinesque proportions.....

I thought that was implied in the reference to the Tea Party - Sarah Palin connection.   

[djAdvocate]

Nov 24, 2017 19:48:59 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 24, 2017 19:36:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not to mention the fact that her Republican opponent was a whackadoodle of Aikinesque proportions.....

I thought that was implied in the reference to the Tea Party - Sarah Palin connection.   

it was.  i was just removing all semblance of doubt.

[thyme4change]

Nov 24, 2017 18:38:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 24, 2017 18:26:07 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I heard that. It must have been some campaign. Half the people who are ON the ballot don't win. But to have enough people remember how to spell Murakowski and write it out in the booth is impressive!

She did have some advantages.  Her father had been the senator previously.  She was appointed in 2002 when he became governor.  She was re-elected in 2004, so was in office for eight years.  She got "primaried" by the Tea Party - Sarah Palin wing in 2010, losing by less than 2% of the vote.  After saying that numerous people had urged her to run as a write-in candidate, she won the 2010 election.  Impressive, yes, but she was not an unknown before.  

That puts a lot of context around it. Thanks for the info.

[thyme4change]

Nov 24, 2017 19:36:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 24, 2017 18:38:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

She did have some advantages.  Her father had been the senator previously.  She was appointed in 2002 when he became governor.  She was re-elected in 2004, so was in office for eight years.  She got "primaried" by the Tea Party - Sarah Palin wing in 2010, losing by less than 2% of the vote.  After saying that numerous people had urged her to run as a write-in candidate, she won the 2010 election.  Impressive, yes, but she was not an unknown before.  

not to mention the fact that her Republican opponent was a whackadoodle of Aikinesque proportions.....

I think about Flake's open seat and the whackadoodle that Trump is advocating for. It makes me wonder if AZ will actually put a Democrat into the Senate.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 26, 2017 16:14:51 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 24, 2017 19:36:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not to mention the fact that her Republican opponent was a whackadoodle of Aikinesque proportions.....

I think about Flake's open seat and the whackadoodle that Trump is advocating for. It makes me wonder if AZ will actually put a Democrat into the Senate.

this is the only way this gets fixed, imo- when Trump (and the GOP) go too far with candidates.

Arizona is not Oklahoma.  it is possible to get a moderate in there.

[thyme4change]

Nov 27, 2017 11:31:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 26, 2017 16:14:51 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think about Flake's open seat and the whackadoodle that Trump is advocating for. It makes me wonder if AZ will actually put a Democrat into the Senate.

this is the only way this gets fixed, imo- when Trump (and the GOP) go too far with candidates.

Arizona is not Oklahoma.  it is possible to get a moderate in there.

We had Deconcini for a long time, and McCain seems to piss off a lot of "true conservatives." It cracks me up that Flake is getting roasted as RINO. He ran the Goldwater institute for pete's sake.

[tallguy]

Nov 27, 2017 11:31:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 26, 2017 16:14:51 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think about Flake's open seat and the whackadoodle that Trump is advocating for. It makes me wonder if AZ will actually put a Democrat into the Senate.

this is the only way this gets fixed, imo- when Trump (and the GOP) go too far with candidates.

Arizona is not Oklahoma.  it is possible to get a moderate in there.

Just hoping for Alabama right now.  

[tallguy]

Nov 27, 2017 12:11:32 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 27, 2017 11:31:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is the only way this gets fixed, imo- when Trump (and the GOP) go too far with candidates.

Arizona is not Oklahoma.  it is possible to get a moderate in there.

We had Deconcini for a long time, and McCain seems to piss off a lot of "true conservatives." It cracks me up that Flake is getting roasted as RINO. He ran the Goldwater institute for pete's sake.

And got a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.  But nobody ever accused the far-right of being particularly rational.  "If you're not as far-right as I am you must be a RINO!  And that's almost as bad as a g*****n LIBERAL!"      

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2017 22:06:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I don't know which is worse...

The Republican idea of "Keep the government basically the same size, just rearranging how many people and what stuff is where... PLUS cut taxes for the rich"

or

The Democrat idea of "Explode government largess but don't create a way to pay for it"





Personally I'd rather get rid of BOTH parties... but as I've said elsewhere, Voters (generally speaking) aren't smart enough to do that.

Or just not invested personally in the process ?  One only needs to look at the % of the population that actually takes the time to go out and vote.  For the ones that do, it's just too easy to say that this parties candidate is good enough without applying any effort in what that candidate actually represents. 

[Lizard Queen]

Nov 27, 2017 12:56:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 20, 2017 22:06:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I don't know which is worse...

The Republican idea of "Keep the government basically the same size, just rearranging how many people and what stuff is where... PLUS cut taxes for the rich"

or

The Democrat idea of "Explode government largess but don't create a way to pay for it"





Personally I'd rather get rid of BOTH parties... but as I've said elsewhere, Voters (generally speaking) aren't smart enough to do that.

Or just not invested personally in the process ?  One only needs to look at the % of the population that actually takes the time to go out and vote.  For the ones that do, it's just too easy to say that this parties candidate is good enough without applying any effort in what that candidate actually represents. 

Or, even if you are invested in the process, your favorite candidate(s) are already bumped out of the race before the primaries get to your state, leaving you with no choice, or only shitty choices.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2017 14:21:29 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Nov 27, 2017 12:56:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Or just not invested personally in the process ?  One only needs to look at the % of the population that actually takes the time to go out and vote.  For the ones that do, it's just too easy to say that this parties candidate is good enough without applying any effort in what that candidate actually represents. 

Or, even if you are invested in the process, your favorite candidate(s) are already bumped out of the race before the primaries get to your state, leaving you with no choice, or only shitty choices.

We all want our favorite to win.  It always ends up that favorite of the majority wins.  The Democratic process in action.  Wasn't my point, but I get what your saying. 

[Lizard Queen]

Nov 27, 2017 14:25:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 27, 2017 14:21:29 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Or, even if you are invested in the process, your favorite candidate(s) are already bumped out of the race before the primaries get to your state, leaving you with no choice, or only shitty choices.

We all want our favorite to win.  It always ends up that favorite of the majority wins.  The Democratic process in action.  Wasn't my point, but I get what your saying. 

Is it really, though?  I'm not so sure.  Too much power given to a couple tiny states.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2017 14:29:27 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Nov 27, 2017 14:25:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

We all want our favorite to win.  It always ends up that favorite of the majority wins.  The Democratic process in action.  Wasn't my point, but I get what your saying. 

Is it really, though?  I'm not so sure.  Too much power given to a couple tiny states.

There is a process to amend the Constitution.  You will need the votes to do this. 

[thyme4change]

Nov 27, 2017 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 27, 2017 14:29:27 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Is it really, though?  I'm not so sure.  Too much power given to a couple tiny states.

There is a process to amend the Constitution.  You will need the votes to do this. 

The primary process isn't dictated by the constitution. I'm not sure if we are talking about the general. I don't like the primary system on either side. Too few states get to actually have a say in it.

[billisonboard]

Nov 22, 2017 23:25:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You want "a beautiful thing"? I think it would be "a beautiful thing" if no Party could have more than 33% of total available power in either the House or the Senate. Even if it had to be divided up into 33% to Republicans, 33% to Democrats, 33% to "everyone else".

That way, no one Party could ram legislation down the throats of the rest of the country. They would AT LEAST have to convince the non-Republicans and non-Democrats... and likely need to convince all of them.

Either that or a "NO single Party can have a Majority" rule/law... If your party ends up with more than 49.9% of the seats, they have to "vote off" members down to being less than 50%, and a special election can be held with anyone from that specific Party barred from running.

I am attempting to "operationalize" these.

The Senate could get to the 33% rule easier with the fact that 1/3 are up for election every two years. For example if we implemented it for 2018, the Republicans would not be allowed to run anyone for any of the 33 openings because they will already hold more than 33% of the seats. Of course, incumbents could run as "Independents" of course. Democrats could only elect 10 members. I would think that Feinstein (California), Gillibrand (New York, Cardin (Maryland) Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Warren (Massachusetts), and Hirono (Hawaii) could all run as independents and win. If too many Democrats were to win, the below systems proposed for the House could be used to select who to seat and who not to seat.

The House, with everyone up for election every two years, would be be interesting. The two ways I could see it working is that the 33% of any party with the most seniority would be seated and other seats would have special elections. Of course, that would lead to even less turnover than there is now. The other choice I see is the 33% with the largest percentage of the votes in their election.

Now if the political parties get to decide, they could easily seat the ones who just barely won. That could really upset those who didn't get seated. I bet that they would be so upset that they,  , reject the party and run in the special election as independents.

[thyme4change]

So, my state may chose someone to represent them, but because of a quota, that person will get the boot and some other person who was not chosen by the people will be put in?

Y'all need to brush up on the constitution. I already feel powerless. This will only make it worse.

[tallguy]

Nov 27, 2017 17:14:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 22, 2017 23:25:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You want "a beautiful thing"? I think it would be "a beautiful thing" if no Party could have more than 33% of total available power in either the House or the Senate. Even if it had to be divided up into 33% to Republicans, 33% to Democrats, 33% to "everyone else".

That way, no one Party could ram legislation down the throats of the rest of the country. They would AT LEAST have to convince the non-Republicans and non-Democrats... and likely need to convince all of them.

Either that or a "NO single Party can have a Majority" rule/law... If your party ends up with more than 49.9% of the seats, they have to "vote off" members down to being less than 50%, and a special election can be held with anyone from that specific Party barred from running.

I am attempting to "operationalize" these.

The Senate could get to the 33% rule easier with the fact that 1/3 are up for election every two years. For example if we implemented it for 2018, the Republicans would not be allowed to run anyone for any of the 33 openings because they will already hold more than 33% of the seats. Of course, incumbents could run as "Independents" of course. Democrats could only elect 10 members. I would think that Feinstein (California), Gillibrand (New York, Cardin (Maryland) Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Warren (Massachusetts), and Hirono (Hawaii) could all run as independents and win. If too many Democrats were to win, the below systems proposed for the House could be used to select who to seat and who not to seat.

The House, with everyone up for election every two years, would be be interesting. The two ways I could see it working is that the 33% of any party with the most seniority would be seated and other seats would have special elections. Of course, that would lead to even less turnover than there is now. The other choice I see is the 33% with the largest percentage of the votes in their election.

Now if the political parties get to decide, they could easily seat the ones who just barely won. That could really upset those who didn't get seated. I bet that they would be so upset that they,  , reject the party and run in the special election as independents.

Don't bother.  It is not in any way workable as proposed. 

[billisonboard]

Nov 27, 2017 20:05:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 27, 2017 17:14:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am attempting to "operationalize" these.

...

Don't bother.  It is not in any way workable as proposed. 

I know but being a Political Science major it is a fun game for me to play.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2017 17:14:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 22, 2017 23:25:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You want "a beautiful thing"? I think it would be "a beautiful thing" if no Party could have more than 33% of total available power in either the House or the Senate. Even if it had to be divided up into 33% to Republicans, 33% to Democrats, 33% to "everyone else".

That way, no one Party could ram legislation down the throats of the rest of the country. They would AT LEAST have to convince the non-Republicans and non-Democrats... and likely need to convince all of them.

Either that or a "NO single Party can have a Majority" rule/law... If your party ends up with more than 49.9% of the seats, they have to "vote off" members down to being less than 50%, and a special election can be held with anyone from that specific Party barred from running.

I am attempting to "operationalize" these.

The Senate could get to the 33% rule easier with the fact that 1/3 are up for election every two years. For example if we implemented it for 2018, the Republicans would not be allowed to run anyone for any of the 33 openings because they will already hold more than 33% of the seats. Of course, incumbents could run as "Independents" of course. Democrats could only elect 10 members. I would think that Feinstein (California), Gillibrand (New York, Cardin (Maryland) Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Warren (Massachusetts), and Hirono (Hawaii) could all run as independents and win. If too many Democrats were to win, the below systems proposed for the House could be used to select who to seat and who not to seat.

The House, with everyone up for election every two years, would be be interesting. The two ways I could see it working is that the 33% of any party with the most seniority would be seated and other seats would have special elections. Of course, that would lead to even less turnover than there is now. The other choice I see is the 33% with the largest percentage of the votes in their election.

Now if the political parties get to decide, they could easily seat the ones who just barely won. That could really upset those who didn't get seated. I bet that they would be so upset that they,  , reject the party and run in the special election as independents.

The "33%" option doesn't remove seats though... So there's a flaw in your "operationalization"

Any particular party could have as many seats as they could elect... but the POWER of those seats would only represent 33% of all power for that side of Congress.

For ease of numbers, let's use the Senate (which has 100 members, not counting the VP who only votes in the case of ties): if (for example) there were 53 Republican Senators, 44 Democrat Senators, and 3 "Independent" Senators... the Republican's votes would each count for .6226415 votes. The Democrat's votes would count for .75 votes each. The Independent's votes would count for 11 votes each. The formula is simple, 33% (or, in the case of the Senate, which we are using for the preceding example, simply 33) divided by the number of Senators per group. As the years go by and the party numbers change, the percentages are adjusted appropriately.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2017 18:52:10 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

So, my state may chose someone to represent them, but because of a quota, that person will get the boot and some other person who was not chosen by the people will be put in?

Y'all need to brush up on the constitution. I already feel powerless. This will only make it worse.

"Because of quota" it's hoped that states would stop picking Republicans and Democrats... and instead pick PEOPLE, not PARTY.

[Deleted]

Here's another idea:

Take names and parties off of ballots. Instead have each politician list THREE verifiable "pros" (in their opinion) for why they should be voted for, and voters have to pick based on VERIFIED "pros". The "pro" can be anything that's provably factually true about themselves (like: Voted for {or against} {some well known thing}, Religion {if they think it more important that qualifications}, Member of {some organisation like Rotary Club})

Expanding that: Allow each balloted candidate to ALSO state ONE verifiable "con" (in their opinion) about each of their opponents (will appear on each opponent's ballot space, unattributed as to who provided it), for why they SHOULDN'T be voted for, on the ballot (like: [opposition 1] Voted against {or for} {some well known thing}, [opposition 2] Accused of sexual assault numerous times, [opposition 3] Uses Twitter too much, et cetera...)

[billisonboard]

Nov 28, 2017 0:40:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

... The "33%" option doesn't remove seats though... So there's a flaw in your "operationalization"

Any particular party could have as many seats as they could elect... but the POWER of those seats would only represent 33% of all power for that side of Congress.

...

Interesting. Except we elect people, not parties. It could be the seat is tied to the party the winning candidate is nominated by. Except in Washington State there are top two open primaries. It could be tied to whatever the elected person self identifies. Except they could continually shift for advantage. Picture this one: every Democrat "leaves" the party except Nancy Pelosi, giving her 1/3 of the power of the House.

[billisonboard]

Nov 28, 2017 0:40:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

..

For ease of numbers, let's use the Senate (which has 100 members, not counting the VP who only votes in the case of ties): if (for example) there were 53 Republican Senators, 44 Democrat Senators, and 3 "Independent" Senators... the Republican's votes would each count for .6226415 votes. The Democrat's votes would count for .75 votes each. The Independent's votes would count for 11 votes each. The formula is simple, 33% (or, in the case of the Senate, which we are using for the preceding example, simply 33) divided by the number of Senators per group. As the years go by and the party numbers change, the percentages are adjusted appropriately.

So with the current Senate, Republicans would have a third of the votes, Democrats a third, Senator King a sixth, and Senator Sanders a sixth.

[billisonboard]

Nov 28, 2017 0:43:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 27, 2017 18:52:10 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

So, my state may chose someone to represent them, but because of a quota, that person will get the boot and some other person who was not chosen by the people will be put in?

Y'all need to brush up on the constitution. I already feel powerless. This will only make it worse.

"Because of quota" it's hoped that states would stop picking Republicans and Democrats... and instead pick PEOPLE, not PARTY.

Except under 1/3 rule, the Democrats and Republicans would have one third of the power even if the people elected only one of them somewhere/anywhere in the country.

[billisonboard]

Nov 28, 2017 0:56:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Here's another idea:

Take names and parties off of ballots. Instead have each politician list THREE verifiable "pros" (in their opinion) for why they should be voted for, and voters have to pick based on VERIFIED "pros". The "pro" can be anything that's provably factually true about themselves (like: Voted for {or against} {some well known thing}, Religion {if they think it more important that qualifications}, Member of {some organisation like Rotary Club})

Expanding that: Allow each balloted candidate to ALSO state ONE verifiable "con" (in their opinion) about each of their opponents (will appear on each opponent's ballot space, unattributed as to who provided it), for why they SHOULDN'T be voted for, on the ballot (like: [opposition 1] Voted against {or for} {some well known thing}, [opposition 2] Accused of sexual assault numerous times, [opposition 3] Uses Twitter too much, et cetera...)

Okay but once @richardintn is no longer around, how can these be "VERIFIED" as fact and not just opinion?

[thyme4change]

Nov 28, 2017 0:43:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 27, 2017 18:52:10 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

So, my state may chose someone to represent them, but because of a quota, that person will get the boot and some other person who was not chosen by the people will be put in?

Y'all need to brush up on the constitution. I already feel powerless. This will only make it worse.

"Because of quota" it's hoped that states would stop picking Republicans and Democrats... and instead pick PEOPLE, not PARTY.

"Hoped" is a big word.

So, let's say voters chose 45% republicans, 40% democrats and 15% other. How does it work? Do each of the three factions each have 1/3rd power?