Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Will Kavanaugh be confirmed?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Burn it all down


Results are only viewable after voting.

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only reason Trump was elected was because he was the only one on the ballot not named Hillary fucking Clinton.

Gary Johnson and the Green Party lady who’s name I can’t remember say hi. But, yeah, point taken.
 
Gary Johnson and the Green Party lady who’s name I can’t remember say hi. But, yeah, point taken.

...oh, I know about the others, but they were never really in the race...but I would really like to see a moderate/independent strong enough to destroy the Dems and Reps in the POTUS election...Senate and House too for that matter.
 
The only reason Trump was elected was because he was the only one on the ballot not named Hillary fucking Clinton.
Once again, false. At least in FL. I was able to vote who I wanted to vote for, and didn't have to choose either. I agree, though, that the D's shot themselves in the foot. Biden or Sanders might be president today, if the DNC hadn't been beholden to The Narrative.

Edit: Nevermind, I see what you're saying. Part of the reason for the independent vote was to try to get to the 5%, so that they could be invited to debates, get some ad time, etc. Obviously it didn't happen this election, because of "hold-your-nose voters (on both sides)", but you're right...being Team Elephant or Team Donkey isn't helpful.
 
Once again, false. At least in FL. I was able to vote who I wanted to vote for, and didn't have to choose either. I agree, though, that the D's shot themselves in the foot. Biden or Sanders might be president today, if the DNC hadn't been beholden to The Narrative.

Edit: Nevermind, I see what you're saying. Part of the reason for the independent vote was to try to get to the 5%, so that they could be invited to debates, get some ad time, etc. Obviously it didn't happen this election, because of "hold-your-nose voters (on both sides)", but you're right...being Team Elephant or Team Donkey isn't helpful.

...yup...kinda like being forced to choose between a knife in the chest or a bullet in the head.
 
I think it was more of not wanting a Clinton in that won the election. Wisconsin, Mich, PA, OH,Flor
If the dem's had done a better job of selection someone to represent them other than HRC thing could have been different.

Agreed. I didn't vote for her.
 
Out of fairness to lessor populated area's the electoral vote stills needs to be used. imo
The founders thought about allowing the senate to appoint president and thought about strictly a popular vote but after much though and consideration didn't think either way would be fair.
I agree.

Instant runoff voting doesn't get rid of the electoral college.

Did you watch the video?
 
...watching/listening to Mitch McConnell...hypocrisy from both sides playing the blame game.

..."you suck, no you suck....well you suck more, no you suck more......."
 
...Kavanaugh's conformation not a slam dunk. Murkowsli just said that Kavanaugh "is not the right man for the court at this time". Collins is to announce her intent at 3 PM Eastern. Flake is still "wobbly".
 
He was being accused of rape. No sane person is cool, calm and collected when their character is being assassinated based on claims of farting and drinking beer. If the democrats care so much about this Ford lady they should stop using her as a pawn and help her press sexual assault charges against Kavanaugh. Won't happen.

I don't think those terms mean what you think they mean. They are well-established part of the alternative lexicon. Next thing people are going to say is that a blumpkin has something to do with pumpkins. It's insulting. This redefining words and changing words has been going on too much recently, most notably, and repeatedly, from the president himself. The whole charade is tired.

What's also tired is this confusing of realities, this notion that because the Democrats seem to be using Ford as a tool it somehow negates what she has to say. To say she doesn't seem credible is laughable, but if you say this, there is still a mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding Kavanaugh that at the very least reveals him to be a liar under oath and incredibly defensive and hotheaded (not great traits for supreme court judges). Some say that's what they would do if they were falsely accused. Maybe. But it's also textbook guilty behavior. So it could go either way.

The point is you have all these things to weigh, and regardless of where you stand politically, the scales tip towards unfit.
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.

Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.


The statement to the FBI offers a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident, as were Judge Kavanaugh’s.

This was the person who Ford supposedly helped coach how to beat a Polygraph.
 
WTF you talking about? It has been ruled by a Majority of States since the country began. It would take a supper majority to change it,
38 as a matter of fact. Unless you have in mind to ignore that pesky Constitution.

I think it was clear what he said - that people are more important than areas and in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections - the minority of people (but majority of land/states) set the president.

The constitution off course has amendments - because it is not perfect - and the point is that the need to value population of remote areas is less of an issue in an age of supersonic flights and instantaneous information access - so giving more weight to sparsely populated areas is something that might not be that important.

History has shown that repeated rule of minority is fragile and likely to cause discontent - and in my opinion we are starting to see it.
 
I think it was clear what he said - that people are more important than areas and in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections - the minority of people (but majority of land/states) set the president.

The constitution off course has amendments - because it is not perfect - and the point is that the need to value population of remote areas is less of an issue in an age of supersonic flights and instantaneous information access - so giving more weight to sparsely populated areas is something that might not be that important.

History has shown that repeated rule of minority is fragile and likely to cause discontent - and in my opinion we are starting to see it.
I don't think its a matter of giving more weight to sparsely populated area's but giving them some representation thats based against population and the amount of electorates.
I certainly would want the SW & NE determining policy and representation just because they are in heavily populated areas.
 
I think it was clear what he said - that people are more important than areas and in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections - the minority of people (but majority of land/states) set the president.

The constitution off course has amendments - because it is not perfect - and the point is that the need to value population of remote areas is less of an issue in an age of supersonic flights and instantaneous information access - so giving more weight to sparsely populated areas is something that might not be that important.

History has shown that repeated rule of minority is fragile and likely to cause discontent - and in my opinion we are starting to see it.

I get what was said. But I do not see it changing nor do I think it should. I do not see convincing the majority in 38 States to give totally control to 5 or 6. The country might break up with States leaving. It could be possible. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits States leaving, although I am sure that would become a mess again.

California has made the most noise like this. It would be most interesting to see how the small geographic areas that make up the liberal majority, mostly around San Fransisco County with lessor strength in the LA basin, would drag the other 90% of the geographic area along with them through a squabble with the Federal government over the cost Federal property and other points of contention.
I do not see the populations around the major Military bases in the state, agreeing to secede from the US and pay the cost to boot.
We have already seen San Diego county with drawning from supporting California policies are in conflict with Federal policy.
 
I don't think its a matter of giving more weight to sparsely populated area's but giving them some representation thats based against population and the amount of electorates.
I certainly would want the SW & NE determining policy and representation just because they are in heavily populated areas.

You are once again giving too much weight to location. All I am saying is that it makes sense to me to have equal weight for every individual's vote, regardless of where he or she lives. Just because a lot of people live in a certain area does not mean they all vote the same...
 
You are once again giving too much weight to location. All I am saying is that it makes sense to me to have equal weight for every individual's vote, regardless of where he or she lives. Just because a lot of people live in a certain area does not mean they all vote the same...
Are you telling me that SO Cal isn't primarily demo and Texas isn't primarily Repub?
There are areas where that lean one way over another big time.
 
I get what was said. But I do not see it changing nor do I think it should. I do not see convincing the majority in 38 States to give totally control to 5 or 6. The country might break up with States leaving. It could be possible. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits States leaving, although I am sure that would become a mess again.

Oh, I doubt it will happen as well, I still think that it shows a weakness of the constitution - which should be amended because times have changed. Do I believe it will? Not anytime soon if ever. Do I think that there will be issues going forward? I sure do - if the majority of people need to align themselves to a minority rule for long periods of time - history has shown us that unrest is sure to follow.

California has made the most noise like this. It would be most interesting to see how the small geographic areas that make up the liberal majority, mostly around San Fransisco County with lessor strength in the LA basin, would drag the other 90% of the geographic area along with them through a squabble with the Federal government over the cost Federal property and other points of contention.
I do not see the populations around the major Military bases in the state, agreeing to secede from the US and pay the cost to boot.
We have already seen San Diego county with drawning from supporting California policies are in conflict with Federal policy.

I understand all of this. I still think that a country who's independence declaration includes the "all men are created equal" phrase is yet to achieve that goal when the vote of each person is not the same.
 
Are you telling me that SO Cal isn't primarily demo and Texas isn't primarily Repub?
There are areas where that lean one way over another big time.


So what? If every vote in Texas is worth exactly 1 vote - why does it matter where it originated from? Same with California. The minority of Democrats in Arizona will have their vote count just as the minority Republicans in California will. The do not now. The same is true for the majority in either place (or as it seems, the entire country).

1 person, 1 vote. The argument was, and still is, that not everyone's vote is worth the same given the electoral vote system - which made a lot of sense when the constitution was written but less so today.
 
If you gave each State a number of Senators commensurate with their population, and changed the Presidential election to the total popular vote, I don't believe the concept of the United States makes any sense. I expect it would surely cease to be, probably before the change could somehow be put into effect.
 
I understand all of this. I still think that a country who's independence declaration includes the "all men are created equal" phrase is yet to achieve that goal when the vote of each person is not the same.

It hasn't happened all that many times. And this time, California accounts for the complete unbalance.
It may become more pronounced if the most populace states continue to grow disproportional. Perhaps one or two most populace states need to split into two, perhaps even three. Redistribute the Senatorial count and the electoral votes more equitably by adding a few and still leave all areas of the whole Nation in play.
 
If you gave each State a number of Senators commensurate with their population, and changed the Presidential election to the total popular vote, I don't believe the concept of the United States makes any sense. I expect it would surely cease to be, probably before the change could somehow be put into effect.

I am pretty certain that someone said the same about slavery and women rights before as well and I reject that idea completely. An idea that does not change with the times is one that will not continue to survive.

But, more specifically - I would actually not change anything about the senate. I think the senate and congress make a lot of sense as a check and balance mechanism. I do not think the electoral vote however for presidential elections makes sense anymore.
 
It hasn't happened all that many times. And this time, California accounts for the complete unbalance.
It may become more pronounced if the most populace states continue to grow disproportional. Perhaps one or two most populace states need to split into two, perhaps even three. Redistribute the Senatorial count and the electoral votes more equitably by adding a few and still leave all areas in play though out the whole Nation.

Why? Does a republican that moves to California automatically starts voting Democrat? That's an absurd idea. Equal presidential weight vote for everyone removes the geography completely from the equation.
 
Why? Does a republican that moves to California automatically starts voting Democrat?

>>> I doubt that would happen.

That's an absurd idea.

>>> If you mean the above, you may be correct.

Equal presidential weight vote for everyone removes the geography completely from the equation.

>>> Thus the point of Creating more States of the States with the very largest populations. Cal probably should be three states.
 
>>> I doubt that would happen.

You just said 2 posts above that San Diego with it's military population that mostly comes from out of California is more conservative. I think you might have broken an in-thread record for contradicting yourself here, my friend.

>>> Thus the point of Creating more States of the States with the very largest populations. Cal probably should be three states.

No, it does not, unless you create a state around every person - the inherent mathematical problem of the electoral vote is such that not every vote is the same - because I can assure you that there are still some Republican that live in San Francisco just as there are some Democrats that live in Imperial County.
 
Collins is going to go from the D's cross-aisle darling to persona non grata after this speech and vote.
 
If you gave each State a number of Senators commensurate with their population, and changed the Presidential election to the total popular vote, I don't believe the concept of the United States makes any sense. I expect it would surely cease to be, probably before the change could somehow be put into effect.

I think you finally are starting to get it. It does not in fact make sense anymore. The only reason it made sense back then was that the states were independent before the US was formed, so of course the constitution had to take that independence into account. We are no longer separate colonies. We've been socially and economically one big country for probably 100 years, and the integration is, if anything, accelerating.

Even if you want to keep the States, the current lineup is completely due to a series of historical accidents. No rational being could justify ND and SD being separate states, for instance, while CA is one state. I understand how that situation came to be, but there is no reason for preserving it (other than to give people who live in the Dakota's a bigger voice in government than people who live in California).

barfo
 
Collins is going to go from the D's cross-aisle darling to persona non grata after this speech and vote.

She's possibly the stupidest (or most disingenuous, take your pick) senator there is, and I would have said that 6 months ago also. She'll believe literally anything anyone tells her - like the FBI investigation was very thorough or that Kavanaugh won't vote to overrule Roe.

barfo
 
You just said 2 posts above that San Diego with it's military population that mostly comes from out of California is more conservative. I think you might have broken an in-thread record for contradicting yourself here, my friend.

>>> Was not speaking of the military population, but the population around that large military installation(s). I noted last spring while I was there, that they were disagreeing with the State being a Sanctuary State.



No, it does not, unless you create a state around every person - the inherent mathematical problem of the electoral vote is such that not every vote is the same - because I can assure you that there are still some Republican that live in San Francisco just as there are some Democrats that live in Imperial County.

Well I won't argue the point with you, Wyoming voters have always been heavier than anyone else.
As a matter of fact the 13 smallest states have a totally of about 1/4 the population of California but with 44 electoral votes to Cals 55.

They exceed Texas' 38 votes by 6 with about 40% the population.

Probably no way to totally balance the value, but changing the election from and election from among the states to a simple popular count nation wide would not be beneficial in my view nor possible to pull off.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top