(05-29-2025, 09:17 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 07:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes it does. It empowers voters in the middle by giving every voter more choices. It will reward candidates that make a play for the middle.
No you are way off base here. (1) You have no idea how the people elected this way would be once elected. You are guessing. (2) It does allow a candidate the majority of the people do not want to be elected. (3) It is a scam that is being proposed by the minority of liberals currently. AOC put you up to this?
(1) This is true of the current system, the next election would be where we hold them accountable.
(2) This is more true of the current system. The current system allows you to win with a plurality, meaning, more people voted for someone else but you win because those people split their votes. A ranked choice system at least looks at who those vote splitters would have preferred if their first choice candidate wasn't there. There may not be a candidate that the majority of people prefer as a first choice. There usually isn't, not in any system.
(3) False. The DNC has always opposed efforts to open primaries or implement ranked choice voting. The Democrats opposed the nonpartisan primary amendment proposal Florida had in 2020, for instance. Democrats hate this idea. It's the independent voters, right, left, middle, who want this. AOC got into office via a closed Democrat primary and a non-competitive general election. AOC has gone to bat for redistricting reform, but not voting reform. Redistricting reform could help matters, but it's more of a tar baby than voting reform. Voting reform is simpler.
(05-29-2025, 09:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 09:17 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]No you are way off base here. (1) You have no idea how the people elected this way would be once elected. You are guessing. (2) It does allow a candidate the majority of the people do not want to be elected. (3) It is a scam that is being proposed by the minority of liberals currently. AOC put you up to this?
(1) This is true of the current system, the next election would be where we hold them accountable.
(2) This is more true of the current system. The current system allows you to win with a plurality, meaning, more people voted for someone else but you win because those people split their votes. A ranked choice system at least looks at who those vote splitters would have preferred if their first choice candidate wasn't there. There may not be a candidate that the majority of people prefer as a first choice. There usually isn't, not in any system.
(3) False. The DNC has always opposed efforts to open primaries or implement ranked choice voting. The Democrats opposed the nonpartisan primary amendment proposal Florida had in 2020, for instance. Democrats hate this idea. It's the independent voters, right, left, middle, who want this. AOC got into office via a closed Democrat primary and a non-competitive general election. AOC has gone to bat for redistricting reform, but not voting reform. Redistricting reform could help matters, but it's more of a tar baby than voting reform. Voting reform is simpler.
Nice try. Not buy it. Changing how we count votes does not change behavior of people once in office. Nice try but this is actually a feinted attempt to change rules so people the majority of the people want do not get elected. This was actually kind of used in college football once upon a time. That failed miserably too. Look for other ways to accomplish this, leave the one vote one person alone please.
Our President of peace in the world is trying again to get a cease fire in Gaza. New proposal being presented.
This just in Hamas wanted Kamala to be elected...
(05-29-2025, 10:18 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 09:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ](1) This is true of the current system, the next election would be where we hold them accountable.
(2) This is more true of the current system. The current system allows you to win with a plurality, meaning, more people voted for someone else but you win because those people split their votes. A ranked choice system at least looks at who those vote splitters would have preferred if their first choice candidate wasn't there. There may not be a candidate that the majority of people prefer as a first choice. There usually isn't, not in any system.
(3) False. The DNC has always opposed efforts to open primaries or implement ranked choice voting. The Democrats opposed the nonpartisan primary amendment proposal Florida had in 2020, for instance. Democrats hate this idea. It's the independent voters, right, left, middle, who want this. AOC got into office via a closed Democrat primary and a non-competitive general election. AOC has gone to bat for redistricting reform, but not voting reform. Redistricting reform could help matters, but it's more of a tar baby than voting reform. Voting reform is simpler.
Nice try. Not buy it. Changing how we count votes does not change behavior of people once in office. Nice try but this is actually a feinted attempt to change rules so people the majority of the people want do not get elected. This was actually kind of used in college football once upon a time. That failed miserably too. Look for other ways to accomplish this, leave the one vote one person alone please.
Our President of peace in the world is trying again to get a cease fire in Gaza. New proposal being presented.
This just in Hamas wanted Kamala to be elected...
What would improve the behavior of people we elect to Congress, if not this?
(05-29-2025, 11:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 10:18 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Nice try. Not buy it. Changing how we count votes does not change behavior of people once in office. Nice try but this is actually a feinted attempt to change rules so people the majority of the people want do not get elected. This was actually kind of used in college football once upon a time. That failed miserably too. Look for other ways to accomplish this, leave the one vote one person alone please.
Our President of peace in the world is trying again to get a cease fire in Gaza. New proposal being presented.
This just in Hamas wanted Kamala to be elected...
What would improve the behavior of people we elect to Congress, if not this?
Changing how votes are counted does not have ANY effect on the behavior of people we elect to congress. Just get off it. Pushing it more just makes you look stupid.
BTW the Twin of my late wife lives in AOC's district and actually knows her. You have no clue as to what she is.
(05-29-2025, 11:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 10:18 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Nice try. Not buy it. Changing how we count votes does not change behavior of people once in office. Nice try but this is actually a feinted attempt to change rules so people the majority of the people want do not get elected. This was actually kind of used in college football once upon a time. That failed miserably too. Look for other ways to accomplish this, leave the one vote one person alone please.
Our President of peace in the world is trying again to get a cease fire in Gaza. New proposal being presented.
This just in Hamas wanted Kamala to be elected...
What would improve the behavior of people we elect to Congress, if not this?
We should start with tar and feathers then get serious from there.
(05-29-2025, 11:10 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 11:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What would improve the behavior of people we elect to Congress, if not this?
Changing how votes are counted does not have ANY effect on the behavior of people we elect to congress. Just get off it. Pushing it more just makes you look stupid.
BTW the Twin of my late wife lives in AOC's district and actually knows her. You have no clue as to what she is.
The threat of them losing the next election doesn't change their behavior?
Also, what did your late wife's twin tell you about AOC?
(05-29-2025, 01:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 11:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What would improve the behavior of people we elect to Congress, if not this?
We should start with tar and feathers then get serious from there.
Who is going to run for office when it becomes acceptable to scald and maim members of Congress?
How much access will we have to the next guy after we tortured and killed the last guy?
(05-29-2025, 01:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 11:10 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Changing how votes are counted does not have ANY effect on the behavior of people we elect to congress. Just get off it. Pushing it more just makes you look stupid.
BTW the Twin of my late wife lives in AOC's district and actually knows her. You have no clue as to what she is.
The threat of them losing the next election doesn't change their behavior?
Also, what did your late wife's twin tell you about AOC?
We already have the threat of them losing the next election. This is not a valid reason to change. If you do not believe it then just ask those that lost their seats last election....lol
Not for me to pass that information on to you. That is not really an ethical thing to do. You can use your crystal ball that tells you how people will behave in the future and decide for yourself.
(05-29-2025, 02:26 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 01:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The threat of them losing the next election doesn't change their behavior?
Also, what did your late wife's twin tell you about AOC?
We already have the threat of them losing the next election. This is not a valid reason to change. If you do not believe it then just ask those that lost their seats last election....lol
Not for me to pass that information on to you. That is not really an ethical thing to do. You can use your crystal ball that tells you how people will behave in the future and decide for yourself.
For about 90% of them, the only way they lose the next election is if someone more extreme primaries them. There is no pressure from the middle once they are in office.
For the other 10%, they are mainly riding the President's coattails. If they're the same party as the President, all they can do is hope the President is popular on election Day, if they are not, they just hope for the opposite. Either way, their fate depends on the President, and not on anything that they do.
The dynamics are very different for open seats, but we are talking about incumbents and how they think. It's much more determinative, and centrism and compromise play no role in their calculus. That's what we need to change.
As for AOC, I know what she has proposed, I know what she sponsors, I know what she says in public, Even though she's not my representative, I don't agree with anything she has done or said, although I do find it interesting. I don't look down on bartenders.
(05-29-2025, 02:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2025, 02:26 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]We already have the threat of them losing the next election. This is not a valid reason to change. If you do not believe it then just ask those that lost their seats last election....lol
Not for me to pass that information on to you. That is not really an ethical thing to do. You can use your crystal ball that tells you how people will behave in the future and decide for yourself.
For about 90% of them, the only way they lose the next election is if someone more extreme primaries them. There is no pressure from the middle once they are in office.
For the other 10%, they are mainly riding the President's coattails. If they're the same party as the President, all they can do is hope the President is popular on election Day, if they are not, they just hope for the opposite. Either way, their fate depends on the President, and not on anything that they do.
The dynamics are very different for open seats, but we are talking about incumbents and how they think. It's much more determinative, and centrism and compromise play no role in their calculus. That's what we need to change.
As for AOC, I know what she has proposed, I know what she sponsors, I know what she says in public, Even though she's not my representative, I don't agree with anything she has done or said, although I do find it interesting. I don't look down on bartenders.
Neither do I,
By the way the appeals court just reinstated the Trump tariffs while the appeal is going forward. Just reported on FOX, will be looking for the article.
(05-26-2025, 05:22 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: 499932687-1118216833681045-8794257560684742176-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/RpfZ1kjd/499932687-1118216833681045-8794257560684742176-n.jpg)
FEMA is screwing over Western NC so.....
Link
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- Governor Josh Stein is criticizing the decision from FEMA not to extend the 100% reimbursement rate for Helene cleanup efforts in western North Carolina.
The decision from FEMA goes against what happened with similar hurricanes like Katrina and Maria. The decision not to do the same for Helene, means millions of dollars for relief funds the state will have come with up elsewhere.
It's a start to reign in those out of control radical leftist "Judges"
Supreme Court limits judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns
Justices say courts must defer to agencies unless their decisions fall outside a 'broad zone of reasonableness'
The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the authority of judges to block infrastructure projects due to environmental concerns.
The justices handed down the lone decision Thursday morning, slightly curbing judicial authority at a time when President Donald Trump's administration is loudly complaining about alleged judicial overreach. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, relates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirement for environmental impact statements (EIS) in infrastructure projects supported by the federal government.
"NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion of the court.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...l-concerns
(05-29-2025, 06:10 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]It's a start to reign in those out of control radical leftist "Judges"
Supreme Court limits judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns
Justices say courts must defer to agencies unless their decisions fall outside a 'broad zone of reasonableness'
The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the authority of judges to block infrastructure projects due to environmental concerns.
The justices handed down the lone decision Thursday morning, slightly curbing judicial authority at a time when President Donald Trump's administration is loudly complaining about alleged judicial overreach. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, relates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirement for environmental impact statements (EIS) in infrastructure projects supported by the federal government.
"NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion of the court.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...l-concerns
This is an excellent decision, but if Congress were doing their jobs it might not have been necessary.
There predictably has been a spotlight on the national debt. We are definitely in trouble here. Looking at our national debt, should I panic?
36.7 trillion +/-
7 trillion or about 10% is inter-government. One department owing another.
70% is owed internally to domestic companies and individual citizens.
That leaves 20% for other governments and foreign individuals.
I have T-bills like many of you may. So the 70% is actually providing income for citizens. That money is then injected back into the economy. Kind of an odd circle there.
https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal...that-debt/
(05-30-2025, 09:51 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]There predictably has been a spotlight on the national debt. We are definitely in trouble here. Looking at our national debt, should I panic?
36.7 trillion +/-
7 trillion or about 10% is inter-government. One department owing another.
70% is owed internally to domestic companies and individual citizens.
That leaves 20% for other governments and foreign individuals.
I have T-bills like many of you may. So the 70% is actually providing income for citizens. That money is then injected back into the economy. Kind of an odd circle there.
https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal...that-debt/
The 20% is still a big problem that can allow other countries to manipulate the value of our currency. And as a taxpayer it should feel bad when we give them this interest money. It's way more than any foreign aid we give.
Also, what's essentially happening with the 70% is that the lower middle class that pays income taxes but doesn't own treasuries is just transferring money back to the very wealthy who may or may not pay income taxes but own lots of T bills. And that interest income comes to them tax-free. This is making the social problems that we try to solve with welfare worse, potentially a negative spiral. We definitely need to reduce the deficit significantly. We need to look at Medicare and Defense spending, there is a lot of bloat and rent in both places.
(05-30-2025, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2025, 09:51 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]There predictably has been a spotlight on the national debt. We are definitely in trouble here. Looking at our national debt, should I panic?
36.7 trillion +/-
7 trillion or about 10% is inter-government. One department owing another.
70% is owed internally to domestic companies and individual citizens.
That leaves 20% for other governments and foreign individuals.
I have T-bills like many of you may. So the 70% is actually providing income for citizens. That money is then injected back into the economy. Kind of an odd circle there.
https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal...that-debt/
The 20% is still a big problem that can allow other countries to manipulate the value of our currency.
Also, what's essentially happening with the 70% is that the lower middle class that pays income taxes but doesn't own treasuries is just transferring money back to the very wealthy who may or may not pay income taxes but own lots of T bills. And that interest income comes to them tax-free. This is making the social problems that we try to solve with welfare worse, potentially a negative spiral. We definitely need to reduce the deficit significantly. We need to look at Medicare and Defense spending, there is a lot of bloat and rent in both places.
Yes, we need to pay down debt as the credit card is currently full. Fortunately there is already plenty of tax money if spent wisely and not squandered or stolen. Defense just needs to be accountable for their dollars, be able to pass audits and be good stewards. I agree entitlement programs are bloated and there is a lot of fraud there. The government is a very inefficient charity organization. They need to leave charity work to charities and not be involved. (not a service identified in the constitution) While on the topic of charities and non-profits many have morphed. First, into slush funds for the wealthy to pay for their lifestyle. Second, a career for individuals to get wealthy "running" them. A person can actually go to college and get a degree in this. Why would someone invest thousands of dollars for that degree unless ..... Need to set some guard rails here.
Talk about insanity........ And the Cult of the Jackass is wondering why public opinion of them is at an all time low and why they are losing voters......
CT Democrats pass bill that will let illegal aliens sue cops, cities if anyone calls the feds on them
HARTFORD, CT- Once again, Connecticut Democrats have come down on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue. Last week, the House Democratic majority advanced legislation that will force municipalities to abide by the state’s so-called “Trust Act,” which permits “any aggrieved person” to seek an injunction against a municipality or its agents, including police and school employees, that cooperate with federal immigration officials, the CT Mirror reports.
The bill was revised after pro-illegal alien advocates argued that municipalities, i.e., police departments, can ignore the state law already in place that defines when police and others can alert federal agents to the location of an illegal alien or detain them for deportation.
https://lawenforcementtoday.com/ct-democ...uthorities