Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
but you don't know what the negative votes were for. statistially, you're correct, but in reality, the 30% of the time he voted against his party could have been anything, it could have been on major issues, or it could have been about his pet bill to support wolverine farmers....you don't know unless you look up the actual voting record for each important issue
What are you on about?
He asked, Can any of you name any Republican congressmen or women who consistently vote against party lines and side with the Democrats?
My answer, if you bothered to read the fucking chart I posted, was
The member of the House most willing to buck his party is Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who has voted against the Republican majority more than one-third of the time.
Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against her party 27 percent of the time.
You can try and shit on my chart all you want. Neither of us was trying to track the importance of every piece of legislation that came before the 114th congress. How does one track the importance of legislation to 327 million different Americans? What you view as important, might not be worth a squirt of piss to me, and vice versa.
The above image looks at all votes,and factors the in majority position for each party (in cases where it was not unanimous) and compared every member of each body's vote against the party majority.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is very complicated. The important thing to take away from this is that the Democrats are bad because they don't represent Tty's interests enough.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Also Umair is like Shakespeare and Homer
INF Flux
Well-Known Member
Democrats are bad because they represent donors interests too much, causing them to lose support of voters like TTY and myself. Perhaps regaining that support should be something Democrats are interested in doing? Alas, continued attempts to motivate through insults and ignorant vote shaming seem to be the strategy of the day. It'll work this time, keep telling yourself that
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
First off, you seem to be going down the path of refusing large donors. Do you seriously think that any party can win if they are outfunded ten to one? Second, I appreciate that the Dems aren't doing enough to represent your and Tty's interests but I have seen no evidence that convincingly suggests that you and Tty make up a large enough group to win elections outside of isolated areas. Thirdly, I resent the idea that you and Tty somehow "own" progressive issues. I consider it a fractious idea that lacks political awareness and maturity. Lastly, I am quite put off that you seem willing to ensure the election of fascists because you did not get your way.
travisw
Well-Known Member
Hi Roger you are correct in that, the first graphic I posted includes all votes, including ones were going against the party doesn't really matter that much. I never looked up what the no votes were for. If you look only at Senate votes where the majority got less than 66 votes or House votes where the winners were under 235, the scene changes a bit.
For example, Manchin was more likely to vote against the Democrats in closer votes (although on the Senate side, the number of non-close votes was pretty small). That held for the rest of the Democrats, too.
On the House side, where being in the minority offers less power, the Democrats that voted the most against the party were less likely to do so when the vote was close. But Republicans like Christopher P. Gibson and Bob Dold were much more likely to.
At that time, in that particular congress, there have been seven House votes so far in which the winning side had fewer than 218 votes. Dold voted against his party six of the seven times. Gibson voted against the Republicans every single time.
Again, I was only attempting to post an easily digestible infographic. It is a cannabis site after all. I wasn't trying to dupe anyone. @shitstykk, @padaraper, and @grannyshu like to operate under the assumption that only democrats vote against their party. I was simply trying to show that republicans do the same thing.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Right.
So, tell me, how well is the hard line Progressive(TM) candidate faring thus far?
Let's review where the Progressives(TM) are right now:
Out of the 465 congressmen up for office this term, how many candidates fit your Progressive(TM) ideology and won their primaries?
Last I saw, very few seats were even contested by Progressives(TM) and out of those cherry picked to run in liberal districts, only about 40% won their primary. This makes about 7 or 8 Progressives(TM) running in the fall. Seven or Eight Progressives(TM) -- in the House -- not the Senate because no Progressives(TM) won their primary for a Senate seat. To hold the majority in the House, a party needs to hold 218 seats. Even if all 8 Progressives(TM) win, they will be 210 seats short.
I don't think you are arguing from a very strong position. Pretty weak, actually.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Maybe I missed it but could you post a link to where you are getting this information?Hi Roger you are correct in that, the first graphic I posted includes all votes, including ones were going against the party doesn't really matter that much. I never looked up what the no votes were for. If you look only at Senate votes where the majority got less than 66 votes or House votes where the winners were under 235, the scene changes a bit.
For example, Manchin was more likely to vote against the Democrats in closer votes (although on the Senate side, the number of non-close votes was pretty small). That held for the rest of the Democrats, too.
On the House side, where being in the minority offers less power, the Democrats that voted the most against the party were less likely to do so when the vote was close. But Republicans like Christopher P. Gibson and Bob Dold were much more likely to.
At that time, in that particular congress, there have been seven House votes so far in which the winning side had fewer than 218 votes. Dold voted against his party six of the seven times. Gibson voted against the Republicans every single time.
Again, I was only attempting to post an easily digestible infographic. It is a cannabis site after all. I wasn't trying to dupe anyone. @shitstykk, @padaraper, and @grannyshu like to operate under the assumption that only democrats vote against their party. I was simply trying to show that republicans do the same thing.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This thread is about the Supreme Court nomination.
Your outdoor activities sound engaging but I fail to see the relevance to the current topic.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Oh look- yet another Intolerant Liberal.
Why don't you just come out and say you are against free speech when someone says something you don't want to hear?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I made this point and got doxxed for it.
You make it and get likes.
The hypocrisy around here is amazing.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
And how is this a problem for you?
Aren't our elected representatives supposed to actually represent our interests?
You said it in sarcasm but you actually- accidentally of course- spoke the truth!
travisw
Well-Known Member
Sorry about that. I don't typically post that many times per day. I must have edited the link out once we started shit posting. In all honesty though, had I got the information from Saint Bernie himself, he wouldn't have accepted it. The homophobic guy that degrades you by calling you a ball washer and seeks to dehumanize by comparing you to wild fucking dogs, doesn't care about sources.
Almost everything Copied and pasted directly from this article
Here are the members of Congress who vote against their party the most
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/here-are-the-members-of-congress-who-vote-against-their-party-the-most/?utm_term=.593285626379
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Huh
Elected representatives from your districts are supposed to represent your interests? You actually believe that representatives in districts where you don't vote for SHOULD represent YOUR interests?
Interesting.
That's not my expectation at all. Representatives are supposed represent the people of their district. This is why Joe Manchin supports the coal industry by the way. He also supports the coal miner unions and pensions. I expect nothing less.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Then maybe he should be a republican.
zeddd
Well-Known Member
I am against free speech?
Do you have any other modes, such as eco drive or are you programmed to full insanity mode and run that continuously. Your software needs upgrading to something more appropriate than barking moron. Love free speech, you sound like a republican with your “notions” and your “free speech”. Nazis use the same language, does that bother you? Not that I have any regard for your opinion.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Your own ego doxxed you.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Clueless, you are. You don't bother to vote and expect everyone in the country to elect somebody who represents your interests.