Official Kavanaugh hearing thread

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, it's not "absurd".  It's perfectly rational and logical.

One man one vote.  It's the citizens who decide the presidency, not the state of South Dakota (who have two senators) or the citizens of Los Angeles (who have two senators).

Each citizen in South Dakota has the same voice as each citizen of Los Angeles.

Citizens make up the state. States are diverse. They have unique interests. I’m sorry but the people of LA county damn sure do not represent the interests of the people of Louisiana. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So you are assuming that all individual voters in a state have the same interests?

In many respects, absolutely. Do I need to give examples?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Citizens make up the state. States are diverse. They have unique interests. I’m sorry but the people of LA county damn sure do not represent the interests of the people of Louisiana. 

And no one here is saying they do.  But you still have not addressed why 1 man, 1 vote is inherently a less fair system than the one we have.  Again I ask and would love for you to actually freaking answer, why is it ok for my vote to count for less than others, especially when I pay taxes just like everyone else?

[homersapien 11,440]

25 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well yes because it’s the state’s interest only. A presidential election is suppose to lend to collective interests of all states....

BS.  A presidential election should lend (?) to the collective interests of all citizens of the country.

The system we have now enables a president who didn't receive the most votes.  WTF?

(I am inferring what you mean by the term "lend".)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think you sell rural people short.

I don't think they would have a problem with accepting the value of one man, one vote at all.   

And again, you are arbitrarily placing a value on the vote of a rural voter that is higher than the value of the vote of an urban voter.

You’re delusional 

[homersapien 11,440]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Citizens make up the state. States are diverse. They have unique interests. I’m sorry but the people of LA county damn sure do not represent the interests of the people of Louisiana. 

Fine, but what should that have to do with a presidential election? 

Louisiana has their two senators just like the people of LA county do.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

And no one here is saying they do.  But you still have not addressed why 1 man, 1 vote is inherently a less fair system than the one we have.  Again I ask and would love for you to actually freaking answer, why is it ok for my vote to count for less than others, especially when I pay taxes just like everyone else?

Even your 1 man 1 vote argument doesn’t move the needle. It only shifts the emphasis to metropolitan areas. Why in the hell would it be worth appeasing ranchers in Montana when all you need is Los Angeles county?

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re delusional 

That's not really an adequate response for this forum.  But you knew that, didn't you?

Anyway, thanks for your opinion.  I'll give it the consideration it deserves. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Fine, but what should that have to do with a presidential election? 

Louisiana has their two senators just like the people of LA county.

Because the executive has immense power....

Have you read the constitution? That would be a good start.

[homersapien 11,440]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In many respects, absolutely. Do I need to give examples?

Your delusional. 

Consider that I was born and raised in Alabama and lived there until I moved to SC.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Even your 1 man 1 vote argument doesn’t move the needle. It only shifts the emphasis to metropolitan areas. Why in the hell would it be worth appeasing ranchers in Montana when all you need is Los Angeles county?

And you've still yet to answer the one question I've asked you to answer repeatedly.  Do me a favor bud.  Don't engage with me on this again until you do that.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Because the executive has immense power....

Have you read the constitution? That would be a good start.

I am not arguing the constitution.  In fact, I am arguing changing it.

Geeez

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

And you've still yet to answer the one question I've asked you to answer repeatedly.  Do me a favor bud.  Don't engage with me on this again until you do that.

State your question again, please.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

I am not arguing the constitution.  In fact, I am arguing changing it.

Geeez

Look we won’t agree. Can I shift the discussion and ask you something else?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

State your question again, please.

Why is it ok for my vote to count for less than say, my mom's (she lives in Alabama, I'm in Texas), despite the fact that I'm a tax paying citizen just like her?  Why is it inherently fair that her vote is worth more in the electoral college system than mine?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Why is it ok for my vote to count for less than say, my mom's (she lives in Alabama, I'm in Texas), despite the fact that I'm a tax paying citizen just like her?  Why is it inherently fair that her vote is worth more in the electoral college system than mine?

It’s not really about whether I think your moms vote should be more valuable than yours. That’s an elementary perspective. I would reference my lengthy articulation previously offered. I would also reference Titan’s earlier post. I would say it’s inherently more fair to incentivize catering to diverse issues all across the spectrum, as necessary under the EC, than what would be incentivized under a direct democracy - namely the allocation of disproportional focus and resources to issues primarily urban. 

What are your thoughts on electoral discretion?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s not really about whether I think your moms vote should be more valuable than yours. That’s an elementary perspective. I would reference my lengthy articulation previously offered. I would also reference Titan’s earlier post. I would say it’s inherently more fair to incentivize catering to diverse issues all across the spectrum, as necessary under the EC, than what would be incentivized under a direct democracy - namely the allocation of disproportional focus and resources to issues primarily urban. 

What are your thoughts on electoral discretion?

I don't think it's an elementary perspective.  I think it's fundamentally unfair to a large swath of the population to serve the interests of a few and I have an issue with that.  If my vote counts less, then I'd also like to pay less in taxes than those who's vote counts for more.

Assuming with electoral discretion, you mean that an elector can vote for who they wish in the electoral college?  If so, it's kind of a moot point.  Most states have laws binding their electors to the popular vote within the state.  As Homer mentioned, I could potentially get behind a system that uses the electoral college but divvies up each state's votes by popular vote within the state (ex: a state with 20 votes has a 50/50 vote tie.  Each candidate would then receive 10 electoral votes from that state).  I think that would really encourage campaigns to go everywhere while still giving added weight to smaller states.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't think it's an elementary perspective.  I think it's fundamentally unfair to a large swath of the population to serve the interests of a few and I have an issue with that.  If my vote counts less, then I'd also like to pay less in taxes than those who's vote counts for more.

Assuming with electoral discretion, you mean that an elector can vote for who they wish in the electoral college?  If so, it's kind of a moot point.  Most states have laws binding their electors to the popular vote within the state.  As Homer mentioned, I could potentially get behind a system that uses the electoral college but divvies up each state's votes by popular vote within the state (ex: a state with 20 votes has a 50/50 vote tie.  Each candidate would then receive 10 electoral votes from that state).  I think that would really encourage campaigns to go everywhere while still giving added weight to smaller states.

Glad we disagree. Good talk. Time for football. WDE Brad lets golf one day

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Glad we disagree. Good talk. Time for football. WDE Brad lets golf one day

All in for that.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

3 hours ago, around4ever said:

This will never end. 

If it ended some people around here that love to argue and belittle those with a different perspective would need to find a new pass time.

Felt like BK was somewhat lame in responses defending his youth, but who would not be. With you on the Ford lady. Ditsy is a pretty good word 4ever.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Here is a video of the full speech by Sen. Collins. I see no dishonesty or lies. If you think different please note the time and lie.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/05/sen_collins_supports_kavanaugh_presumption_of_innocence_is_ingrained_in_american_consciousness.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Victory!!

For the long term of our country and for upholding of a core principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Victory!!

For the long term of our country and for upholding of a core principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here.  As has been said 1,000 times already, this is a job interview.  Collins herself said that standard is not in play when it came to Kavanaugh.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here.  As has been said 1,000 times already, this is a job interview.  Collins herself said that standard is not in play when it came to Kavanaugh.

That's your opinion and I obviously disagree. In any event it's finally over so live with it.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

That's your opinion and I obviously disagree. In any event it's finally over so live with it.

Who said I wasn't living with it?  I have previously said that a conservative majority on the SC was cemented the moment this seat came open.  But nowhere does innocent until proven guilty apply in our society except a court of law during a criminal trial.  To say otherwise is simply asserting a false notion.  Just be accurate in what you say.  That's all I'm asking.