External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @KatyTurNBC view original on Twitter
We should not elect ANYONE who does not demonstrate a capacity to read laws and does not appear to enjoy doing so. That's *the* job.
I wish everyone would take a step back from positions to notice many of our legislators are not proficient in the basic skills of the job. #TWPSB
If someone has not read and/or does not understand the text of a bill and the consequences that flow from that bill, then their opinions on positions are moot...because they cannot tell you if the bill accurately reflects those positions or addresses their championed problems.
So your job interview questions should go like this:
1. Have you ever read a federal bill start to finish.
Both sides can make bad law, congress must have individual ethics to remain healthy.
If the answer is conscience, then...
6. Have them describe a situation related to the job they think is ethically ambigious & how they would handle it. Not an easy peasy one, a subtle one.
If they only cite watergate level shenanigans, #byefelicia
We need those who can sort the gray, not just handle blatant bad.
If they pass, then...
7. Ask them what they struggle with. Not just "oh gosh, I work too hard!" - we caught onto that interview answer in 1986.
9. Ask about how resolute they are in what they think should happen on issues.
If they are no compromise ever, period, then, #byefelicia
We need people who are open to solutions we have not yet come up with & collaboration. Some issues are hardline, but those are rare issues.
If they pass, then...
10. Start discussing issues/priorities. You need to know if the person you are hiring can do the job before you start discussing work product. Issues ARE important. Skill set is *more* important. There will be people who are skilled & ideologically good.
I am a constituent of Susan's. Ever since I have moved here I am astonished at how incredibly effective she is at harnessing people's hope and her words like a damn magician.
Though she is a consistent conservative vote, she is able to focus all eyes on her.
Then your family and community will look at you different.
Your behavior will be questioned, and even if you has zero responsibility, many will blame you for being a tease, wanting it, being irresponsible for choosing what should be a totally innocuous setting.
In this hypo traditional campaigning requires around $1+ million per year to get and/or keep a house seat (plus all the other energy you have to expend to keep the peanut gallery PACs happy).
Let's assume they're at it 5 days/week and take a couple weeks off per year.
Too many really lovely people hoping for their partner, child, parent, etc to be the person they could be if that partner, child, parent, etc if they only changed, which of course they have no desire and/or resources to do.
I've been asked this a lot - what is the benefit of ranked choice voting?
If you feel like politics keeps pushing far left or far right as candidates differentiate, RCV lets you pick the moderate with the back-up of "not the other one".
Maybe you think of yourself as an independent, moderate, etc, and really don't love either party (but probably like one party less) - you can select me as your first choice, and still have the back up of another candidate if not enough people agree with you. #mepolitics
In this race, folks who like Bruce probably don't like Jared, folks who prefer Jared probably aren't keen on Bruce.
A lot of folks would like (or find less annoying) someone who really isn't a party. With RCV, you can do that! It removes the risk of vote-splitting.