Official Kavanaugh hearing thread

[around4ever 4,139]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

link?

I'm not linking the multiple gofundme accounts. I don't want the following emails from them. You can find them, I'm sure.  Somebody has funded all her travels and expenses. 

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Right but the reason this is in place is because if we were to do away with the Electoral College, subsequent POTUS elections will reward candidates and parties who cater to urban voters and it would tilt national policies towards big-city interests. Small town issues and rural values would become obsolete. Direct democracy centralizes power (i.e., government, business, finance, media, etc.) to urban areas to the unjust detriment of the rest of the nation. How is that "better" for the United States? 

Furthermore, citizens have always been permitted to "vote on their feet."

 

First, I refute your premise.  The POTUS doesn't have the responsibility of catering to various regions, that comes from the legislature.  And less populated states already have disproportionate political power in that arena.

Secondly - and more fundamentally - why would it necessarily be less desirable if "national policies" did tilt more towards big city interests?  Big cities are the main drivers of our economy and generate the money that goes to help small communities.

Still not getting the "vote on your feet" reference.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

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  I think our democratic framework with regards to electing two offices, and only two offices, is outdated given population shifts and a better understanding of basic math.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.

Bud, ya can’t just say a direct democracy is better and justify on the grounds that State’s interests are still protected in the senate. You must address a State’s interests in choosing the executive - that’s what you essentially would seek to minimize.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours 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.  Ridiculous?  No.  Something was not right with her.  

link? 

You keep throwing out opinions as if they were facts. (Which is the only way you could justify calling Titan "gullible".)

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, around4ever said:

OK, I have no evidence other than common sense.  

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

This guy is a Mod? 

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

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.

Exactly.  The winner take all aspect of the electoral college is the most pernicious aspect of it.  Eliminate it, and both candidates would be forced to compete for votes everywhere.

[around4ever 4,139]

This will never end. 

Republican v Democrat

Conservative v Liberal

Right v Left

Agree to disagree.  

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, I refute your premise.  The POTUS doesn't have the responsibility of catering to various regions, that comes from the legislature.  And less populated states already have disproportionate political power in that arena.

Secondly - and more fundamentally - why would it necessarily be less desirable if "national policies" did tilt more towards big city interests?  Big cities are the main drivers of our economy and generate the money that goes to help small communities.

Still not getting the "vote on your feet" reference.

Your refutation is unsatisfactory. Every state has an interest in electing the executive. Relying on the power of another branch of government, in no way justifies the proposition of minimizing a state’s role in presidential elections. You will need to do better than that. The burden rests with the one advocating for a direct democracy.

Your second point is completely bogus. Yes, big economic hubs can have positive affects on the aggregate community. However, that doesn’t abrogate the notion that big city interests can also run contrary to he interests of smaller regions. California is not going to have the same interests as Louisiana, or Oklahoma. The latter has a fundamental right to meaningfully vote in a way that reflects interests unique to them, as does the former.

The burden rests with you. If you would see smaller states have their power in elections stripped, you better come with more than that.

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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.

A "direct democracy" is better than the electoral system for determining national offices such as the president and vice president, for all of the reasons already stated by Brad or me.

It obviously has huge faults when applied to legislation.  I think our current legislative process - even with the disproportionate Senate representation works just fine as is.

As far as the burden of argument, I see that applied equally to those who want to retain the current system as those who would change it.  And to my eye, the "repeal it" side is making the better, more democratic and fairer arguments.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

more democratic and fairer arguments.

It’s certainly not democratic if you have an ounce of knowledge about our Constitutional Convention.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

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

The example of the "intellectual dishonesty" he referred to was contained in the same post.

[homersapien 11,440]

19 minutes ago, around4ever said:

I'm not linking the multiple gofundme accounts. I don't want the following emails from them. You can find them, I'm sure.  Somebody has funded all her travels and expenses. 

You think she organized this whole thing as a money-making scheme?

[around4ever 4,139]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You think she organized this whole thing as a money-making scheme?

No, she didn't.  It was a byproduct of agreeing to do it.  

[homersapien 11,440]

30 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Your refutation is unsatisfactory.*  Every state has an interest in electing the executive. Relying on the power of another branch of government, in no way justifies the proposition of minimizing a state’s role in presidential elections. You will need to do better than that. The burden rests with the one advocating for a direct democracy.

Sorry but I don't see it.  There is nothing in our constitution that sanctions or formally recognizes presidential powers being specifically directed toward states, so there is no reason to have a constitutional voting process that provides an "equalization" of state power in that regard.  Whatever state-directed legislation may be passed comes from the congress.

* Sorry if I am failing to "satisfy" you, but that's not me intent to start with.

 

30 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

Your second point is completely bogus. Yes, big economic hubs can have positive affects on the aggregate community. However, that doesn’t abrogate the notion that big city interests can also run contrary to he interests of smaller regions. California is not going to have the same interests as Louisiana, or Oklahoma. The latter has a fundamental right to meaningfully vote in a way that reflects interests unique to them, as does the former.

No, not "bogus" at all.  What I said is true. Cities are the economic engines of the country and the entire country reaps the benefit of that.

I concede the theoretical possibility that cities could promote policies that are contrary to the interests of other regions, but that's what the legislative process is for - to address those possibilities.

And as stated earlier, the simple fact that regions may have conflicting interests does not dictate that one should be provided more electoral power than the other in national elections.   You can keep saying it, but it has no merit.

    

 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

6 minutes ago, around4ever said:

No, she didn't.  It was a byproduct of agreeing to do it.  

So she agreed to organize a fraud for profit? 

[around4ever 4,139]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

So she agreed to organize a fraud for profit? 

As I said the profit was a byproduct.  But you are correct on the fraud part. 

[homersapien 11,440]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s certainly not democratic if you have an ounce of knowledge about our Constitutional Convention.

That's a variation on the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.    

And are you referring to the same Constitutional Convention that sanctioned slavery and restricted the right to vote to white men only?  That Constitutional Convention?

[homersapien 11,440]

3 minutes ago, around4ever said:

As I said the profit was a byproduct.  But you are correct on the fraud part. 

So, then you accuse Ford of committing fraud in this.  Right?

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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.

Actually, the burden of argument lies on both sides - those who would keep the current system and those who would share it.

The reasons a direct democracy - in this case - is better and more fair have been explained previously in this thread by Brad and myself.

So, on the contrary, it is  you who needs to provide some examples of how "state interest" in the matter of electing the presidency justifies and admittedly biased (unfair) process. 

[around4ever 4,139]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, then you accuse Ford of committing fraud in this.  Right?

IMO, yes, along with Schumer, Feinstein, McLean and many others. 

[homersapien 11,440]

10 minutes ago, around4ever said:

IMO, yes, along with Schumer, Feinstein, McLean and many others. 

Man, you are a squirmy.

So you contend this whole thing was a lying fraud perpetuated by Ford.  Can you just stick with that?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@homersapien and @Brad_ATX I will lay out exactly why a direct democracy is undesirable and "worse than" the system currently in place. This is a debated legal topic, so my interest in sparked. I have written on this before.  Feel free to rebut, but I will rest my case. I am happy to provide citations if you need them.

I think there are three fundamental points of emphasis that are fatal to the prospect of a direct democracy. I will share one. If you want to hear what else I think, let me know. This is a short summation.

Such a system would require candidates to concentrate campaigning efforts and resources in heavily populated areas where the majority of United State's citizens live in order to maximize voter turnout in those regions. Senator McHose (NJ) said "Large Urban areas like L.A. and Chicago" would determine "the outcomes of elections." Delaware's former Governor supported this opinion when he observed: 

"First, the direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. In 2000, Al Gore won 677 counties and Bush 2,434, but Gore received more total votes. Circumvent the EC and move to a direct national vote, and those 677 largely urban counties would become the focus of presidential campaigns."

This becomes even more evident by looking at specific examples. Look at Los Angeles County. The 2010 US Census shows that it was home to nearly 10 million residents, meaning more people live in that county than in the nine least populated states combined. It stands then to reason that candidates would focus their efforts efforts exclusively on major metropolitan areas to maximize turnouts of the respective voters. In 2012, Obama received over 2.1 million votes in Los Angeles County, compared to less than 2.1 million votes received in Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Utah combined. More notably, he received more votes in that county than in each of 42 states combined. 

Atlanta would be another example. Tell me if you would like the numbers for ATL.

Further consensus studies show that population patterns in the country reveal great portions of the United States are very sparsely populated, with other areas being very heavily populated. With such concentrated populations of voters in places like LA, Phoenix, NY, Houston, Dallas, Miami, ATL, and Chicago, the swing-state focused campaigns would become centralized on metropolitan areas where the voters reside. Thus, the direct democracy system does not correct the principal alleged problem of the bifurcated nature of American politics, it only switches the emphasis from swing states to major cities. Therefore, a campaign focused on large metropolitan areas would lead candidates to focus only on issues that are important to those voters living there. Issues related to farming, manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, and other rural activities would be omitted from candidate's platforms, while issues paramount to the populated areas would receive disproportionately greater attention. The direct democracy would be a step in wrong direction. The current system, which lends to swing state centered campaigning, requires candidates to focus on broad cross-section issues, since many of the swing states are very economically, culturally, and demographically diverse. Take Ohio for example. Three major metropolitan areas (Cleveland, Columbus, And Cincinnati) - which requires candidates to seek their votes by tailoring their campaigns to pressing issues unique to those areas. However, Ohio also has vast rural areas that have different economic activities such as the coal industry in parts of the east and west, farming in the rural western part, and manufacturing in the northern part. Thus, the candidates must tailor to these areas also. The current system much more effectively addresses the diverse issues and needs of our country than does the purported direct democracy. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's a variation on the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.    

And are you referring to the same Constitutional Convention that sanctioned slavery and restricted the right to vote to white men only?  That Constitutional Convention?

If you're going to accuse me of being fallacious, don't be fallacious when doing so. 

The bad things don't discredit the positive things. Argue better. 

[around4ever 4,139]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Man, you are a squirmy.

So you contend this whole thing was a lying fraud perpetuated by Ford.  Can you just stick with that?

I'm not sure she could have orchestrated it but yes she helped perpetuate it. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Bud, ya can’t just say a direct democracy is better and justify on the grounds that State’s interests are still protected in the senate. You must address a State’s interests in choosing the executive - that’s what you essentially would seek to minimize.

Maybe so.  I put the individual above the state here.  Sorry, I can't get behind a system that weights votes of it's citizens unfairly.