Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true.
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
And CNN isn't covering the story at all... So that part couldn't have been what you meant by contradictory or verifiably false... Truly confused. Maybe you were just being prematurely judgmental about a conservative viewpoint? It's okay to admit that.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
It's not Hunter that would be guilty. It's CNN for not covering the story at all. (So that point wasn't contradictory, verifiably false, meaningless either... still trying to narrow it down so I can understand better what your purely constructive original critique was pointing at...)
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
If they'd made peace with the big lib Trump instead of going to war with him from Day 1 (been beholden to Hillary Clinton essentially), they could've had big Trumpian aid for working mothers, free childcare, infrastructure spending plan, and might've even kept taxes higher for the rich! The guy was a major Democratic donor and could've been schmoozed to the welfare state/big government side with very little effort.
Biden's commission to court pack is a dodge, but he only needs voters to not make the "destroying norms" a reason to stay home or vote against him. He hopes to skate, and polling shows he's skated on so many issues already. If he actually up and loses the election he's favored to win, people are going to look back at doddering about the street violence, calling press lids for the day in the final months of the campaign, and failing to stake out a moderate, solid position opposing his left wing. If he wins, even barely, nothing will happen because there's nothing to learn (and expect another Obama-style midterm defeat when the left gets too complacent)
This seems extremely debatable.
Trump may have been a bit Dem donor in the past, his base of support is rather removed from that now, to the extent it’s shifted the GOP lately.
Another person with the same base and similar platforms maybe you can give them rope on where you align, but Trump’s entire shtick is trading on anger and aggressiveness.
Not just on the wisdom of attempting to placate such a character from the Dems side, but how does it play to his own base if mr anti-establishment gets ensconced there?
I mean maybe? It just seems a rather unlikely scenario but I suppose there are supposedly infinite parallel universes so this may have happened in one or two of those
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote: [quote] The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
It's not Hunter that would be guilty. It's CNN for not covering the story at all. (So that point wasn't contradictory, verifiably false, meaningless either... still trying to narrow it down so I can understand better what your purely constructive original critique was pointing at...)
Are CNN not covering the story at all or is it just not a particularly prominent story?
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote: [quote] The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
It's not Hunter that would be guilty. It's CNN for not covering the story at all. (So that point wasn't contradictory, verifiably false, meaningless either... still trying to narrow it down so I can understand better what your purely constructive original critique was pointing at...)
No, you equated Kavanaugh and Hunter Biden as both individuals who have had accusations leveled against them. You argued that if we deny Kavanaugh a SCOTUS seat based on his accusation we should treat Hunter Biden the same way.
I accepted that argument and agreed that neither should be given a SCOTUS seat.
You then clarified that you weren’t arguing that the accusations disqualified them but that because they hadn’t been convicted they should still be on SCOTUS, despite the allegations. Because innocent until proven guilty.
I disagreed with this because better candidates could be found.
You then backtracked innocent until proven guilty and tried to argue that although neither have been proven guilty of anything Kavanaugh is somehow more innocent than Biden which is, of course, ridiculous.
And now you’re saying some nonsense about CNN. This whole discussion is ridiculous. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue that Kavanaugh and Biden are comparable in this way, beyond the history of substance abuse they share.
On October 25 2020 13:07 ThunderJunk wrote: [quote]
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
[quote]
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
It's not Hunter that would be guilty. It's CNN for not covering the story at all. (So that point wasn't contradictory, verifiably false, meaningless either... still trying to narrow it down so I can understand better what your purely constructive original critique was pointing at...)
No, you equated Kavanaugh and Hunter Biden as both individuals who have had accusations leveled against them. You argued that if we deny Kavanaugh a SCOTUS seat based on his accusation we should treat Hunter Biden the same way.
I accepted that argument and agreed that neither should be given a SCOTUS seat.
You then clarified that you weren’t arguing that the accusations disqualified them but that because they hadn’t been convicted they should still be on SCOTUS, despite the allegations. Because innocent until proven guilty.
I disagreed with this because better candidates could be found.
You then backtracked innocent until proven guilty and tried to argue that although neither have been proven guilty of anything Kavanaugh is somehow more innocent than Biden which is, of course, ridiculous.
And now you’re saying some nonsense about CNN. This whole discussion is ridiculous. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue that Kavanaugh and Biden are comparable in this way, beyond the history of substance abuse they share.
My argument is this: Nothing I said originally was contradictory or verifiably false. Meaningless is in the eye of the moderator.
Everything that followed your response to my statement in the presidential debate thread was either you not remembering what you were replying to in the first place or it was a long series of strawman arguments purposely diverting attention from the original statement - which I still believe was unfairly judgmental.
On October 25 2020 12:30 Nevuk wrote: There was a 0% chance the democrats took the senate in 2018 under any circumstances. They had to defend 18 seats and the GOP had to defend 6, iirc. It was one of the most lopsided senate classes ever. The democrats wound up being +7 in the popular vote nationwide and still lost a few seats due to their locations. It would have needed to be something like +10 or +12 to get the Senate.
I feel like I have to address this myth that a lot of the conservatives in this thread have said: that the actions the democrats took with Kavanaugh were super unpopular.
They weren't. At the end of the hearings, only 41% of people wanted Kavanaugh on the court. Most people wanted the hearings to occur and wanted a more thorough investigation, according to polls (a real one, not the sham one that they called on the FBI to do, where the FBI talked to 0 witnesses and claimed he was exonerated).
The democrats best performing times were during the hearings, and their worst were after them, after the focus had left Kavanaugh. It was one of the best periods of polling they had aside from the initial tax bill.
This is one of those echo chamber things : to anyone not a conservative, his behavior was disgusting. I'm not even talking about the alleged behavior that he denied. The things he admitted to and the way he acted in the hearing itself really turned off voters, especially female ones, with whom he was down something like 20-25 points at the end.
Once the focus left Kavanaugh and went onto the ... guh, fucking caravan, that small gain in the polls vanished.
just to reiterate, court packing is nowhere near the same as filling a vacancy near an election, and voters know it.
I never said Kavanaugh was popular overall. It was EXTREMELY important to GOP voters, however. I don't know if she's right (in fact I think she's wrong) but Claire McCaskill seemed to think it was the kavanaugh affair that sank her.
what im saying is that saving the filibuster for later would have put way more pressure on Rs, maybe forced them to withdraw or vote down the nomination (thanks to people like Flake), and make the base angry. Maybe the would have held seats they ended up losing. what is clear is that pushing as far as they did with Gorsuch was a move with almost no upside, although the Democrat base would have revolted? it would have been a full 2 years until the next election though, plenty of time for the anger to subside, espeically since the Court doesn't seem to be the issue for Democrats it is for Republicans.
On October 25 2020 13:21 KwarK wrote: [quote] It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
It's not Hunter that would be guilty. It's CNN for not covering the story at all. (So that point wasn't contradictory, verifiably false, meaningless either... still trying to narrow it down so I can understand better what your purely constructive original critique was pointing at...)
No, you equated Kavanaugh and Hunter Biden as both individuals who have had accusations leveled against them. You argued that if we deny Kavanaugh a SCOTUS seat based on his accusation we should treat Hunter Biden the same way.
I accepted that argument and agreed that neither should be given a SCOTUS seat.
You then clarified that you weren’t arguing that the accusations disqualified them but that because they hadn’t been convicted they should still be on SCOTUS, despite the allegations. Because innocent until proven guilty.
I disagreed with this because better candidates could be found.
You then backtracked innocent until proven guilty and tried to argue that although neither have been proven guilty of anything Kavanaugh is somehow more innocent than Biden which is, of course, ridiculous.
And now you’re saying some nonsense about CNN. This whole discussion is ridiculous. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue that Kavanaugh and Biden are comparable in this way, beyond the history of substance abuse they share.
My argument is this: Nothing I said originally was contradictory or verifiably false. Meaningless is in the eye of the moderator.
Everything that followed your response to my statement in the presidential debate thread was either you not remembering what you were replying to in the first place or it was a long series of strawman arguments purposely diverting attention from the original statement - which I still believe was unfairly judgmental.
Your original statement about the electoral college and democracy was contradictory. In a democracy the candidates should be appealing to the people and if most of the people live in cities then so be it. Consider the inverse. You can take the voting public and divide them into two uneven groups in countless ways. If you demand equal political power be given to people in the country vs the cities then why not any other two groups? Why not people called Steve and people not called Steve?
Democracy is a very simple system, the voters decide. The electoral college overruling them is fundamentally undemocratic. If you believe that voters in one arbitrary group should have their votes count for more than voters in another arbitrary group then you’re going to need to explain two things. Firstly, why the same argument can’t be used for Steve and secondly, why you hate democracy and believe that some assholes should overrule the people.
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
If they'd made peace with the big lib Trump instead of going to war with him from Day 1 (been beholden to Hillary Clinton essentially), they could've had big Trumpian aid for working mothers, free childcare, infrastructure spending plan, and might've even kept taxes higher for the rich! The guy was a major Democratic donor and could've been schmoozed to the welfare state/big government side with very little effort.
Biden's commission to court pack is a dodge, but he only needs voters to not make the "destroying norms" a reason to stay home or vote against him. He hopes to skate, and polling shows he's skated on so many issues already. If he actually up and loses the election he's favored to win, people are going to look back at doddering about the street violence, calling press lids for the day in the final months of the campaign, and failing to stake out a moderate, solid position opposing his left wing. If he wins, even barely, nothing will happen because there's nothing to learn (and expect another Obama-style midterm defeat when the left gets too complacent)
If Republicans wanted Democrats not to go to war with their guy they shouldn't have engaged in outright obstructionism with Obama. Even by your standards this is low-effort. I'd have thought someone who tediously ties everything back to Democrats doing things would see the cause-effect of Republican behaviour in Obama's second term.
Regarding the supreme court thing, the whole situation just seems so weird.
The regressives with their minority of votes inexplicably get to both have a president and the majority of seats in the senate, and because the US system is so inexplicably gamey, then get to seat 3 people onto the supreme court for life to ruin the freedoms in your country for decades.
And somehow americans are okay with that. Why does a minority of old regressives get to dictate policy for decades when they will all already be dead? And why did Obama with a majority of the votes get to place less of these seats in 8 years than Trump with a minority in 4? And why did he have to deal with a hostile majority in the senate obstructing him from ever doing anything despite having the majority of the votes?
The US system is strange and gamey, and the regressives get so many inexplicable boni in this game.
I mean 'americans' aren't okay with that. Slightly less than half of americans are - that same group that benefits from it. But there's no clear way of fixing it working within the system, and dismantling the system comes with a bunch of unpredictable negative side effects that can certainly be perceived as worse than living with a broken system for the various individuals who make up the USA.
Anyway. In Norway, with our proportional representation, we also have a system where the geographical size of a county (norwegian counties being much bigger than american ones) influences the amount of parliamentary representatives a given county receives. Now, the proportional representation coupled with some math trickery means it's less likely to give an 'unfair' result than the first past the post system does - but one parliamentary election of the past 20 years did result in the 'socialist' side getting a majority (and thus forming the government) despite having slightly fewer votes overall.
And strangely enough, in Norway, the left side have been the ones arguing for preserving the system of geographical size of counties having extra influence, from the perspective of 'otherwise those rural regions end up voiceless and dominated by the cities'. Myself, I disagree with both the left wing in Norway (which I am otherwise a vocal member of) and the right wing in the USA, in that I can't see the reason behind either argument (in terms of presidential elections of parliamentary representation). I do favor increased local governance - but I can't see any reason why people from Finnmark (sparsely populated far north region) should have twice as much say in determining Norway's foreign policy compared to people from Oslo. Anyway, this particular argument isn't one where leftists are inherently morally superior or whatever, it's just both sides playing power politics and the one benefitting from the system being the preserver of it.
I mean there's plenty stuff broken in the american system. And I definitely think republicans are in general a more immoral or amoral bunch than the democrats (without freeing that group of condemnation either). I feel the same way about the left vs the right wing in Norway, too. But it is my impression that it is very, very uncommon for a group that benefits from a particular political system to want to change it, and that this isn't really related to morality (or if it is, then it just highlights the lack of morality guiding the actions from politicians from either side of the spectrum).
On October 25 2020 18:51 Simberto wrote: And why did Obama with a majority of the votes get to place less of these seats in 8 years than Trump with a minority in 4?
Because they were expecting Hillary to win and she would pick their replacements? Hubris.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Honestly don't think anyone is still truthfully claiming the laptop is 'fake' or Russian disinfo. The stuff on the laptop - videos, photos etc is already being put out, started about 24 hours ago. Obviously the stuff is not able to be posted or linked to here but if you know where to look, it's there.
On October 25 2020 18:51 Simberto wrote: And why did Obama with a majority of the votes get to place less of these seats in 8 years than Trump with a minority in 4?
Because they were expecting Hillary to win and she would pick their replacements? Hubris.
Can you please stop responding to things where you have absolutely no clue whatsoever?
McConnell blocking everything is the reason. He has repeatedly bragged about this. There was never a conscious choice by democrats to not confirm judges because they expected Hillary to win. Some republican even stated that he would have made his best effort to block Hillary from nominating anyone during her entire 4 year term, if she had ended up winning.
On October 25 2020 18:51 Simberto wrote: And why did Obama with a majority of the votes get to place less of these seats in 8 years than Trump with a minority in 4?
Because they were expecting Hillary to win and she would pick their replacements? Hubris.
Can you please stop responding to things where you have absolutely no clue whatsoever?
McConnell blocking everything is the reason. He has repeatedly bragged about this. There was never a conscious choice by democrats to not confirm judges because they expected Hillary to win. Some republican even stated that he would have made his best effort to block Hillary from nominating anyone during her entire 4 year term, if she had ended up winning.
I agree with this. RBG voluntary stepping down during the Obama administration wouldn't have changed a thing, because McConnell would have blocked her replacement too. The only way things could have changed would have been if the Dems controlled the Senate too.
On October 25 2020 13:28 ThunderJunk wrote: [quote]
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree. After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. Why do you think Hunter Biden should sit on the Supreme Court? Personally I think that although he hasn’t been convicted the allegations are serious and compelling and that better candidates could be found.
I just don't know what you thought was contradictory about what I said in the first place... "Everything was either contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless"... I thought you must have meant the biden laptop thing was verifiably false, because I can't think of what else would be - but maybe I was wrong? Did you mean something else?
Laptop supposedly contains corroborating evidence. Bobulinski's got phone records and texts as well... Some of the emails themselves are recovered... They didn't appoint Kavanaugh to the supreme court until it was completely apparent that no corroborating evidence would come to light.
I thought the principle you were applying here was innocent until proven guilty? Is it not? What happened to freedom? Is this not America anymore? Or has Hunter been convicted?
There was a long - grotesquely long, but if that's what it takes, fine - process of determining whether or not corroborating evidence would in fact come to light. It's called a hearing.
Where's the Biden hearing?
So you’re saying that because Hunter Biden hasn’t had a hearing he must be guilty? Dude, read the constitution.
It's not Hunter that would be guilty. It's CNN for not covering the story at all. (So that point wasn't contradictory, verifiably false, meaningless either... still trying to narrow it down so I can understand better what your purely constructive original critique was pointing at...)
No, you equated Kavanaugh and Hunter Biden as both individuals who have had accusations leveled against them. You argued that if we deny Kavanaugh a SCOTUS seat based on his accusation we should treat Hunter Biden the same way.
I accepted that argument and agreed that neither should be given a SCOTUS seat.
You then clarified that you weren’t arguing that the accusations disqualified them but that because they hadn’t been convicted they should still be on SCOTUS, despite the allegations. Because innocent until proven guilty.
I disagreed with this because better candidates could be found.
You then backtracked innocent until proven guilty and tried to argue that although neither have been proven guilty of anything Kavanaugh is somehow more innocent than Biden which is, of course, ridiculous.
And now you’re saying some nonsense about CNN. This whole discussion is ridiculous. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue that Kavanaugh and Biden are comparable in this way, beyond the history of substance abuse they share.
My argument is this: Nothing I said originally was contradictory or verifiably false. Meaningless is in the eye of the moderator.
Everything that followed your response to my statement in the presidential debate thread was either you not remembering what you were replying to in the first place or it was a long series of strawman arguments purposely diverting attention from the original statement - which I still believe was unfairly judgmental.
Your original statement about the electoral college and democracy was contradictory. In a democracy the candidates should be appealing to the people and if most of the people live in cities then so be it. Consider the inverse. You can take the voting public and divide them into two uneven groups in countless ways. If you demand equal political power be given to people in the country vs the cities then why not any other two groups? Why not people called Steve and people not called Steve?
Democracy is a very simple system, the voters decide. The electoral college overruling them is fundamentally undemocratic. If you believe that voters in one arbitrary group should have their votes count for more than voters in another arbitrary group then you’re going to need to explain two things. Firstly, why the same argument can’t be used for Steve and secondly, why you hate democracy and believe that some assholes should overrule the people.
What's baffling to me is that anyone has bought into the lie that the electoral college is some noble pursuit to ensure rural communities are represented. It's not. The +2 reps advantages low population states (which may or may not be rural or urban; mostly now they are closer to rural). It helps Rhode Island a ton, and that's an urban state. The true curse of the EC has been and will always be the absurd decision to give all votes to the majority winner most states have embraced.
If people actually cared about increasing representation for rural people, they wouldn't advocate leaving that in place. Because if you are a rural person in a non-purple state in the US (whether it's red or blue), your presidential vote means absolutely nothing. That's why no one visits those states on the campaign trail.
I mean yeah I can totally get on board with making electoral votes into electoral districts. I mean if it can work for Nebraska it can work for a real state.
I don't think that people actually care about representation for urban or rural people they just hate the other side in that discussion.
On October 26 2020 00:13 Sermokala wrote: I mean yeah I can totally get on board with making electoral votes into electoral districts. I mean if it can work for Nebraska it can work for a real state.
I don't think that people actually care about representation for urban or rural people they just hate the other side in that discussion.
Is it hate or just simply exerting power? Your blue or red state going from winner takes all to electoral districts is ceding power to the other party potentially. Also seems like something that is impossible to do at the federal level because elections are run by the individual states.
EPT
