The Democrat Party Headquarters Thread (No Repubs Allowed!!)

[mccollins]

Vote KWhit Democratic Party Leader
Vote McCollins Democratic Party Whip

I think one of our most centrist members should be our Liasion. That way it doesn't matter as much that they are "working with the GOP".

[KWhit]

Whip isn't the same as liason.

[KWhit]

The Leader shooses the Whip:

As the Leader, you choose your Whip (Majority Whip or Minority Whip), but that is a role with no powers in this game except to act in your stead when you're not around. Note: This is a role which would only be used if you are the Leader and you know you will not be around for an extended period of time. You can change this role at any time with impunity. No Whip naming survives the Leader.

But the liason is a totally different role.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The Leader shooses the Whip:

shooses = chooses

[mccollins]

Yep, and I'm nominating myself for Whip and not Liason.

I think henry, chubby, or maybe packerfanatic should be the liason.

[mccollins]

Oh my bad - I didn't catch that the Leader directly chooses the Whip.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Yep, and I'm nominating myself for Whip and not Liason.

I think henry, chubby, or maybe packerfanatic should be the liason.

Well, if I am chosen as Leader, I'll be sure to consider you (I think you'd be a fine choice for that, BTW).

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Well, if I am chosen as Leader, I'll be sure to consider you (I think you'd be a fine choice for that, BTW).

Looking back at our team, I honestly have confidence in any of us so perhaps we should also take our schedules into account since the Whip's only task is to be the Leader when the Leader is unavailable.

If no one wants to push for a different leader, let's get this vote finished up so that we can put the bill together and present it.

[KWhit]

I got a response from CR on the dual-role bill:

Yeah, that would be too drastic a step forward, power-wise, all at once. I would strike that down. One role per bill is the standard. Good question, though.>>

[EagleFan]

I screwed up with my early support of a seer bill. I forgot to check the roles and thought that seer sounded more like a dem role and BG as a rep role.

I'll kind of let that drop a bit and then come out in support of the BG bill, unless we can get seer and BG both as dems.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Looking back at our team, I honestly have confidence in any of us so perhaps we should also take our schedules into account since the Whip's only task is to be the Leader when the Leader is unavailable.

If no one wants to push for a different leader, let's get this vote finished up so that we can put the bill together and present it.

Works for me.

Vote KWhit Democratic Leader

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I screwed up with my early support of a seer bill. I forgot to check the roles and thought that seer sounded more like a dem role and BG as a rep role.

I'll kind of let that drop a bit and then come out in support of the BG bill, unless we can get seer and BG both as dems.

I think both seer and BG bills should pass today (we can pass two bills in one day right - one submitted by the dem leader and one by the rep leader?)...

[path12]

I'm usually around a good 7-8 times a day for future reference. Have no problem with KWhit as leader at this point.

VOTE KWHIT DEM LEADER

[Chubby]

Something we might want to consider putting forward with our bill is to ease the restrictions on presidential term limits. If I'm reading the rules correctly, you can't run for reelection so only 1 term as prez.

If we as a party think it would be best to have a 2 term limit for prez then we should put it forward before there actually is a prez since the other side won't likely vote for it if the prez is a member of the other party.

Yes, there's some risk involved but if we can get the prez spot we as a party will be strong.

[KWhit]

I posted something in the wrong thread.

Just ignore it and hopefully it will be overlooked (it's not a big deal, but here it is):

Whose name do we want to attach to the bill? Who will a popularity boost help the most?

My thinking is that a centrist leaning candidate who we will likely be nominating for the Presidency would be a good choice.

[mccollins]

Dem Leader vote:
KWhit (6) - EagleFan (36), Chubby (39), PackerFanatic (49), chesapeake (50), mccollins (51), KWhit (61), path12 (63)
Other (0)
Not voted (2) - Lathum, henry296

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I posted something in the wrong thread.

Just ignore it and hopefully it will be overlooked (it's not a big deal, but here it is):

Haha - careful!!

[mccollins]

Our two most centrist members? There was talk that they should also get slurry money so as to make sure their seats don't get taken by GOP somehow.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I think both seer and BG bills should pass today (we can pass two bills in one day right - one submitted by the dem leader and one by the rep leader?)...

I believe so. We should put forward the BG bill as that is a Dem role.

[EagleFan]

Can we officially declare KWhit the leader with 7 votes already?

[EagleFan]

don't look now KWhit but I think you just posted in the wrong thread again...

Maybe we should rethink this leader thing...

[KWhit]

Sure, I guess.

[Chubby]

I also think that we should make a non-binding resolution to support the seer bill as a part of our BG bill.

Any thoughts on prez term limits and expanding them to real life limits?

[PackerFanatic]

Pretty sure we can.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

don't look now KWhit but I think you just posted in the wrong thread again...

Maybe we should rethink this leader thing...

Yeah, maybe so.

Sigh. I hate having two threads. I'll be more careful. Trying to hurry before lunch.

All right. Let's hammer this bill out so we can get it proposed.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

don't look now KWhit but I think you just posted in the wrong thread again...

Maybe we should rethink this leader thing...

My thoughts too

[Chubby]

"The President cannot run for re-election at the end of his term. The President cannot be the Speaker or a Leader or Liaison."

from the rules as they stand now

[mccollins]

KWhit, did you just post to the wrong thread again? ;-)

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I also think that we should make a non-binding resolution to support the seer bill as a part of our BG bill.

Any thoughts on prez term limits and expanding them to real life limits?

I don't think CR would allow that as part of the BG bill. Are you suggesting doing that INSTEAD of the BG?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by mccollins

KWhit, did you just post to the wrong thread again? ;-)

If I do it again, impeach me. Please.

[path12]

Proposed bill then taking the recent conversation into account:

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

Two roles are to be established in Congress, that of a Seer and a Bodyguard.

The Seer will be able to, once per year, scan a fellow member of Congress to verify that they are not a member of the Wolf Party. The Seer will be chosen by the Republican caucus. If confidence is lost in the Seer, they can be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Republican caucus' choosing.

The Bodyguard may protect either theirself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic caucus. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic caucus' choosing.

Each party's Liasons will be aware of the identities of both the Seer and the Bodyguard.


First draft and all......

[chesapeake]

KWhit, you look to have critical mass. Congratulations.

As to who should be the primary sponsors of the BG bill:
Does the fact that it is the most extreme Democratic position matter? Could our moderates potentially make themselves more vulnerable by sponsoring it? If the GOP hits it with one of their 3 slurry spots, it could be additionally problematic.

The game rules are very unclear on this.

Unless someone could clarify those mechanics, the safest route would be to have 2 moderate to liberal Dems sponsor the bill, where we can be sure that their constituencies will be happy. Since KWhit has said that he has taken a knock to his popularity to increase his power, he, himself could probably benefit from being one co-sponsor to ensure his reelection.

[Chubby]

We need a speaker to call for a vote and to sign bills today so I threw out the 1st vote. Putting bills up is pointless unless we can vote and get them signed into law.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't think CR would allow that as part of the BG bill. Are you suggesting doing that INSTEAD of the BG?

No way, I'm suggesting we make it part of the bill.

It isn't adding a 2nd role but changing a game rule. It doesn't violate what he already said he'd strike down. If you want to check with him 1st I'm all for that.

[mccollins]

CR struck down putting both roles in one bill - extract that part on the 2nd draft.

Looks great otherwise! Pushes the boundaries a bit - does anyone think it's too much?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by path12

Proposed bill then taking the recent conversation into account:

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

Two roles are to be established in Congress, that of a Seer and a Bodyguard.

The Seer will be able to, once per year, scan a fellow member of Congress to verify that they are not a member of the Wolf Party. The Seer will be chosen by the Republican caucus. If confidence is lost in the Seer, they can be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Republican caucus' choosing.

The Bodyguard may protect either theirself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic caucus. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic caucus' choosing.

Each party's Liasons will be aware of the identities of both the Seer and the Bodyguard.


First draft and all......

CR said he'd strike down any bill with 2 roles I'm pretty sure.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by Chubby

We need a speaker to call for a vote and to sign bills today so I threw out the 1st vote. Putting bills up is pointless unless we can vote and get them signed into law.

Actually, from my understanding, we can vote at any time on a bill - the Speaker calls the END of the vote (based on the conditions in the rules), meaning it would lock voting. The Speaker also has the ability to propose a bill themselves.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

KWhit, you look to have critical mass. Congratulations.

As to who should be the primary sponsors of the BG bill:
Does the fact that it is the most extreme Democratic position matter? Could our moderates potentially make themselves more vulnerable by sponsoring it? If the GOP hits it with one of their 3 slurry spots, it could be additionally problematic.

The game rules are very unclear on this.

Unless someone could clarify those mechanics, the safest route would be to have 2 moderate to liberal Dems sponsor the bill, where we can be sure that their constituencies will be happy. Since KWhit has said that he has taken a knock to his popularity to increase his power, he, himself could probably benefit from being one co-sponsor to ensure his reelection.

I think the Dems in the strongest Dem districts should sponsor the bill.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

KWhit, you look to have critical mass. Congratulations.

As to who should be the primary sponsors of the BG bill:
Does the fact that it is the most extreme Democratic position matter? Could our moderates potentially make themselves more vulnerable by sponsoring it? If the GOP hits it with one of their 3 slurry spots, it could be additionally problematic.

The game rules are very unclear on this.

Unless someone could clarify those mechanics, the safest route would be to have 2 moderate to liberal Dems sponsor the bill, where we can be sure that their constituencies will be happy. Since KWhit has said that he has taken a knock to his popularity to increase his power, he, himself could probably benefit from being one co-sponsor to ensure his reelection.

I didn't even think about the angle of it being the most Dem role - yes, perhaps the sponsors should be two of EagleFan, Path12, and myself (as the middle 3 Dems).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I think the Dems in the strongest Dem districts should sponsor the bill.

That would be me and Lathum.

[path12]

Originally Posted by mccollins

CR struck down putting both roles in one bill - extract that part on the 2nd draft.

Looks great otherwise! Pushes the boundaries a bit - does anyone think it's too much?

Crap, missed CR's ruling on the two role bill. I do think it's important that the Liasons are aware of both seer and BG -- that way the BG knows who to protect. I also think it's important to have a method of changing the role if confidence begins to be lost in that person.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Actually, from my understanding, we can vote at any time on a bill - the Speaker calls the END of the vote (based on the conditions in the rules), meaning it would lock voting. The Speaker also has the ability to propose a bill themselves.

After rereading I think you are right.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I think the Dems in the strongest Dem districts should sponsor the bill.

or that. Geez...

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by mccollins

I didn't even think about the angle of it being the most Dem role - yes, perhaps the sponsors should be two of EagleFan, Path12, and myself (as the middle 3 Dems).

I think I read that only 2 can sponsor???

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

That would be me and Lathum.

With you as our leader you are already sponsoring it by bringing it to the house floor. We'd need another person besides you (or we are able to have another one sponsor it since you aren't able to)

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by path12

Crap, missed CR's ruling on the two role bill. I do think it's important that the Liasons are aware of both seer and BG -- that way the BG knows who to protect. I also think it's important to have a method of changing the role if confidence begins to be lost in that person.

But if either liason is a wolf, we've pretty much lost both of our most important roles.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I think I read that only 2 can sponsor???

Yep, I suggested 2 of those 3 before someone suggested the furthest left 2.

[chesapeake]

CR nixed the dual role idea.

Proposed changes:

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

BE IT RESOLVED:
the role of Bodyguard is hereby established. The Bodyguard may protect either him or herself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by a majority of the Democratic caucus to serve in that role permanently. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, he or she may be removed from the role with the vote of 60 percent of Congress and replaced with a new member, chosen by a majority of the Democratic caucus' choosing.

Each party's Liasons will be aware of the identities of both the Seer and the Bodyguard.

One concern: since a majority of the Dems have to vote for a BG, then the wolves will know who it is. Essentially, he is public. If we want it to be secret, we should hve the job appointed by the Democratic Leader. If public, then we can do it as a caucus. Thoughts?

[path12]

Second draft:

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

A Bodyguard Role is to be established within the Congress, in order to protect members against harm caused by the "Wolf Party".

The Bodyguard may protect either theirself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic caucus. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic caucus' choosing.

Each party's Liasons will be made aware of the identity of the Bodyguard.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Chubby

With you as our leader you are already sponsoring it by bringing it to the house floor. We'd need another person besides you (or we are able to have another one sponsor it since you aren't able to)

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Rules

1) A Leader proposes a Bill in the public thread. The Leader can also name up to two people within his own party to link the Bill to. These will be the main proponents/writers of the Bill and will see more political benefit to its passage (but could have negative ramificiations if it does not pass or is an unpopular bill).