Official Kavanaugh hearing thread

[around4ever 4,139]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

She had no way of knowing the GoFundMe thing would happen, and there's zero to suggest she got paid under the table.  

The latter suggestion is ridiculous.

Don't be so gullible.  The GoFundMe was planned.  Zero to suggest she got paid under the table just like there was zero to suggest Kavanaugh was guilty but many still believe it.  Ridiculous?  No.  Something was not right with her.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Not really because the Senate is still in play.  Smaller states will still have substantial power there.  POTUS or VP can't do it all on their own.

Two different branches of government. I don’t need to spell out the facets of executive power.

In short, it means that voters are free to register wherever they please.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

3 minutes ago, around4ever said:

Don't be so gullible.  The GoFundMe was planned.  Zero to suggest she got paid under the table just like there was zero to suggest Kavanaugh was guilty but many still believe it.

So it's unacceptable to make accusations without evidence for Kavanaugh but you're perfectly cool doing it with her and calling me gullible for not buying it?

 

Quote

Ridiculous?  No.  Something was not right with her.  

Yes, ridiculous.  I watched her entire testimony.  There was nothing wrong with her.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Two different branches of government. I don’t need to spell out the facets of executive power.

In short, it means that voters are free to register wherever they please.

Yup, understand executive power.  Also understand that, again, fundamentally, not all votes in the only nationwide office election are equal.  I think that's inherently wrong.

As for voting on your feet, no.  Still need to register in the state where you live.  Senate, HoR, other elections, and census taking are all necessary.

[around4ever 4,139]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So it's unacceptable to make accusations without evidence for Kavanaugh but you're perfectly cool doing it with her and calling me gullible for not buying it? 

 

Yes, ridiculous.  I watched her entire testimony.  There was nothing wrong with her.

OK, I have no evidence other than common sense.  

If nothing was wrong with her then she is pretty ditzy to be a PhD. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, around4ever said:

OK, I have no evidence.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

Just now, around4ever said:

If nothing was wrong with her then she is pretty ditzy to be a PhD. 

You're a walking stereotype.

[around4ever 4,139]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

You're a walking stereotype.

Huh?  Of what?   Because I made an observation.  

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, around4ever said:

Huh?  Of what?   Because I made an observation.  

The defense of every man virtually accused of sexual assault follows a very consistent, repeated pattern.  So much they call it the "Nuts and Sluts" defense.   She either asked for it, or she's just a nut job whose word can't be taken seriously.

I expected better.

[Mikey 16,718]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

She either asked for it, or she's just a nut job whose word can't be taken seriously.

In this case, she can't remember where or when, why should we believe that she remembers who? Couple that with the political expediency of Ford's coming forward and no, I don't believe her. She'll get rich off of this and will also hold some serious markers on a number of important people. Ford comes out of this a big winner, regardless of how much or little she damaged Kavanaugh's life.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

As for voting on your feet, no.  Still need to register in the state where you live.  Senate, HoR, other elections, and census taking are all necessary.

How is it inherently wrong under our democratic framework, while a direct vote is inherently right? It’s impossible to reconcile with State’s interests. 

What is meant is that nothing stops a person from registering to vote somewhere else. It could be burdensome, but it’s not prohibited. Here is a loose definition:

If you vote with your feet, you show that you do not support something by leaving the place where it is happening or leaving the organization that is supporting it.

[around4ever 4,139]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The defense of every man virtually accused of sexual assault follows a very consistent, repeated pattern.  So much they call it the "Nuts and Sluts" defense.   She either asked for it, or she's just a nut job whose word can't be taken seriously.

I expected better.

There was no assault so neither of those defenses are needed.  IMO, she was a pawn who is a democrat activist who happened to grow up in the same community as Kavanaugh.  She tried to enlist her high school friend, Keyser, to lie about an alleged assault.  Keyser has told the WSJ she was approached numerous times by Monica McLean, former FBI, Obama and Schumer staffer, about her initial testimony and even after the hearing, asking her to change her story.  McLean has been identified as Ford's "beach friend".   

Back to your point.  I do think Ford is a little "nuts" to think she could actually make that accusation with absolutely no facts or corroboration.  She couldn't possibly think she could pass through FBI investigations and Senate hearings on the info she provided.  She was convinced by the Dems that the accusation alone would be enough to stop the confirmation proceedings.  Little did they know that the Republicans would grow a spine and fight back this time. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

14 minutes ago, around4ever said:

There was no assault so neither of those defenses are needed.  IMO, she was a pawn who is a democrat activist who happened to grow up in the same community as Kavanaugh.  She tried to enlist her high school friend, Keyser, to lie about an alleged assault.  Keyser has told the WSJ she was approached numerous times by Monica McLean, former FBI, Obama and Schumer staffer, about her initial testimony and even after the hearing, asking her to change her story.  McLean has been identified as Ford's "beach friend".   

Back to your point.  I do think Ford is a little "nuts" to think she could actually make that accusation with absolutely no facts or corroboration.  She couldn't possibly think she could pass through FBI investigations and Senate hearings on the info she provided.  She was convinced by the Dems that the accusation alone would be enough to stop the confirmation proceedings.  Little did they know that the Republicans would grow a spine and fight back this time. 

You've kind of been all over the place though.  Initially you were affirming this notion that both Ford and Kavanaugh's testimonies could be true to an extent - she was sexually assaulted, but it just wasn't him.  So she was confused about her attacker.  Now it's morphed into full fledged, bald-faced lying and just slightly "nuts" to think it would work.  Is this the argument you're settling on?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How is it inherently wrong under our democratic framework, while a direct vote is inherently right? It’s impossible to reconcile with State’s interests. 

What is meant is that nothing stops a person from registering to vote somewhere else. It could be burdensome, but it’s not prohibited. Here is a loose definition:

If you vote with your feet, you show that you do not support something by leaving the place where it is happening or leaving the organization that is supporting it.

You're completely missing my point.  Go back and read what I posted in response to Titan.  I think our democratic framework with regards to electing two offices, and only two offices, is outdated given population shifts and a better understanding of basic math.  I don't think it's right that I'm asked to pay the same taxes yet have less voting power than others.  If you ask me, the founding fathers screwed up on that one.  The states should not have a say because, as I've already stated multiple times, they're the only offices for which every American is eligible to vote for.  The states, especially smaller ones, still get plenty of weight and say in the Senate.   I also think, if anything, the current system discourages candidates from campaigning everywhere.  Why spend money or time when everyone knows Mississippi or California is going towards one party?  Current system makes it so only 8-10 states actually matter, which blows.  You may see more candidates move towards the middle if they know they can siphon votes from everywhere, as opposed to only focusing on Ohio, Florida, etc.

[around4ever 4,139]

41 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You've kind of been all over the place though.  Initially you were affirming this notion that both Ford and Kavanaugh's testimonies could be true to an extent - she was sexually assaulted, but it just wasn't him.  So she was confused about her attacker.  Now it's morphed into full fledged, bald-faced lying and just slightly "nuts" to think it would work.  Is this the argument you're settling on?

The both could be right was not my opinion just saying that something could have happened and she was confused.  

There are no lies in what I posted, only facts and opinions.  And yes, Dr. Ford being a little nuts and being a pawn of the Dems is my argument. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

No one here thinks the Dem didn't leak this in the beginning.  That still doesn't mean that Collins wasn't intellectually dishonest in her speech.  As I said earlier, you can't say you believe the accuser AND also say you believe Kavanaugh.  It doesn't work like that here because the accuser is only pointing the finger in one direction.

You keep saying Collins was dishonest and lied. Can you be more specific and list some of her lies?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Nice gesture by Murkowski so her "no" vote is offset.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-to-vote-present-on-kavanaugh-so-daines-can-attend-daughters-wedding

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, around4ever said:

Not at all what I'm saying.  The people in Alabama have different needs and beliefs than the people of New York. The system allows for equal representation. 

That's true enough but still don't get the logic.

What is it about the needs of either group that requires they be given greater electoral power than the other?

This is an archaic provision and it should be eliminated like the other archaic provisions, like restricting suffrage to (white) men and counting blacks as 3/5 of a person.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What if California's interests as a state runs contrary to Louisiana's interests as a state. Or New York's interests contrary to Alabama's - two very diverse economies. How in the hell is that fair? 

Seriously?

First, because electing a POTUS is not a zero sum game of state interests.

We are talking about the president of the whole country. Ever single citizen has equal interest in the president. 

How is it "fair" to discount a citizen's vote because they live in a more populous area? 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, around4ever said:

Right. It's based on population so the more populated states still have more voting power but the lesser populated states still have a say in the election. 

Everyone has a "say" in the election.  And it should be an equal say.

The election is a contest of candidates, not states.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What do you mean that they have more voting power?

What are your thoughts on the long-established, "vote on your feet" notion (is it unduly burdensome)?

You contend they don't?

The second sentence seems like a non sequitur to me.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

There's nothing sent down from God on high about this branch being equal representation and that branch being proportional.  It's neither inherently fair or unfair.  It's just what we decide for it to be.

If you believe in the concept of one man(woman) one vote, the electoral system is inherently unfair and should be changed.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Apparently wrong  memory of who assaulted her since there is no one to prove her story. But she has for sure been raped and used by the Dems.  I  did and still do believe in the long accepted premise of innocent until proven guilty. And both Rachel  and Collins (women) did a great job of showing holes in Ford's story.

Ford came forward on her own.  Before Kavanaugh was even nominated.  Her testimony is not a creation of the Democrats.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, around4ever said:

Yes and a lot richer.  😂

link?

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, around4ever said:

Revising the system using your numbers, either Wyoming has no representation or states like Texas, California and New York would have way too much representation. 

Again, the only reason the presidential election is even viewed as a contest between states is the electoral college.

But logically speaking, why is providing either populous states or less populous states greater power better?  What makes either action more virtuous than the other?

The president should be elected by the people by the popular vote.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?

First, because electing a POTUS is not a zero sum game of state interests.

We are talking about the president of the whole country. Ever single citizen has equal interest in the president. 

How is it "fair" to discount a citizen's vote because they live in a more populous area? 

 

The burden rests with you to establish why a direct democracy is better than the system in place. You cannot reconcile the proposition with State’s interests in voting for the Executive.