ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 19th October 2020, 07:29 AM   #201
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,003
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. That was the published list from 2016. Everybody knew that the list of candidates Trump was considering for this appointment was a lot shorter than that.
It was one person long. For their purposes she is perfect as an RGB replacement.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 07:41 AM   #202
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I wonder how Barrett feels to know that more than half the country sees her fast-tracked installation in this ramming down their collective throat as wrong. Not enough, I guess, to heed the pleas of some 100 professors from her alma mater to decline this confirmation and await the election result.
The letter signed by 88 faculty of Notre Dame includes no signers from the law school. I suspect she's not bothered by it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 08:27 AM   #203
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,003
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The letter signed by 88 faculty of Notre Dame includes no signers from the law school. I suspect she's not bothered by it.
The idea that her or anyone else nearing the culmination of a 50 year project to seize the courts would at all care about any of that sort of thing is just inane.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 08:26 PM   #204
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Judge Barrett doesn't want gay people in her schools.
Quote:
(AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers werenít welcome in the classroom.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...i-gay-policies
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 11:34 PM   #205
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,748
Hey!
Don't judge people by what they say or do!
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 11:35 PM   #206
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,779
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Judge Barrett doesn't want gay people in her schools.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...i-gay-policies
I covered this earlier.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 12:37 AM   #207
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,518
Democrats boycott the vote to advance Barrett, forcing the Republicans to break Senate rules in order to do so
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 09:07 AM   #208
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Acceptable to whom?
The party of treason.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 09:59 AM   #209
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,095
Some good news: It looks like Mitch McConnell's dying.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 09:41 PM   #210
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
Murkowski announces she will vote yes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/polit...urt/index.html
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 09:49 PM   #211
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,921
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Murkowski announces she will vote yes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/polit...urt/index.html
Murkowski Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Nominee

March 16, 2016

Quote:
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) issued the following statement today after President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court:

ďToday the President exercised his constitutional authority to nominate an individual to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. However, given the timing of this vacancy, in the middle of a Presidential election and in an increasingly toxic political environment, I had urged the President to refrain from naming a nominee. I believe he should have left that task to the next administration. Vice President Joe Biden, during his time in the Senate, advised that consideration of a Supreme Court nominee should be put off until after the election is over, because the thoughtful consideration that a Supreme Court nominee deserves simply cannot occur at the height of a political season. I find a great deal of wisdom in those words, because in my judgment they accurately describe what is already happening with regard to this election-year nomination. Any nominee is likely to become a political football in the midst of this already contentious and divisive campaign season. This is not good for the nominee, it is not good for the court, and it is not good for the American people.Ē
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2020, 09:11 AM   #212
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
 
bignickel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,200
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
LOL! They didn't even BOTHER with a discharge resolution, which they could have easily have done. But instead, they just said 'eff it' and broke the rules, because... they could.

I'd say that the thing that bothers me the most is all the people going on about 'well, if the Democratic party changes the Supreme Court, then won't the Repubs do the same?!". That's very strange to me: isn't the right question "If the Repubs proceed with hypocritically installing their candidate 2 weeks before the election, won't the Democratic party respond in kind?" So bizarre. The Repubs are ploughing ahead with this, but there's just all this talk about to the Democratic party that "you better not respond, cuz we'll respond back!". Don't want a response? Then fine, don't pull this bs, and you won't get one.

Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
__________________
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
bignickel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2020, 09:22 AM   #213
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
"Installing."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2020, 09:50 AM   #214
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,518
Originally Posted by bignickel View Post
Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
I gave 2 similar suggestions a while ago.

The first is that if you double the size of the Supreme Court, then it becomes harder for Republicans to respond in kind. It's harder to decrease the size than it is to expand it, and it disfavours the Republicans to expand it. That might help level the playing field.

But what I think is the best suggestion, both because it would lead to fairer outcomes, and because it would be very hard to undo - make every Circuit judge a member of the Supreme Court. Have everything, including which cases to take, decided by 9 randomly-selected judges. And the Republicans would find it difficult to say that it wasn't fair, because it would still have a Republican bias.

Combine the two, though, and appoint 179 new judges...
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 04:12 AM   #215
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by bignickel View Post
Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
You cannot guarantee it, but if 10 of the 15 justices are right-wingers, the likelihood is that 9 picked from that group would have a right-wing bias.

The only way it wouldn't happen is if all 5 liberal judges were picked.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:31 AM   #216
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
But again this is all so much noise in the wind for the foreseeable future.

As of this afternoon 5 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court will have been nominated by Presidents who didn't win the Popular Vote, approved by a Republican Senate Majority that represents 15% fewer people than the Democratic Minority. Nothing at this point can change that.

This is not democracy (nor is it "bUt iT's a RePUBLIc!"). This is madness.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 09:12 AM   #217
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 38,259
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But again this is all so much noise in the wind for the foreseeable future.

As of this afternoon 5 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court will have been nominated by Presidents who didn't win the Popular Vote, approved by a Republican Senate Majority that represents 15% fewer people than the Democratic Minority. Nothing at this point can change that.

This is not democracy (nor is it "bUt iT's a RePUBLIc!"). This is madness.


AKA, business as usual.
__________________
"Never judge a man until youíve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, youíll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 09:49 AM   #218
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
As of this afternoon 5 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court will have been nominated by Presidents who didn't win the Popular Vote
Winning the popular vote doesn't mean anything. Just like which team scores more 3 point shots in a basketball game doesn't mean anything. Neither side is trying to win the popular vote. We do not know what the election outcome would have been if candidates were trying to win the popular vote. We only know who won it in reality, where winning it means nothing.

The fact that so many people still cling to this as if it means something demonstrates how out of touch much of the electorate is with basic reality.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:00 AM   #219
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,518
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Winning the popular vote doesn't mean anything.
Hence: madness.

Any electoral system where the person where the winner is often the person or party who got fewer votes than another person or party is fundamentally broken.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:05 AM   #220
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Hence: madness.

Any electoral system where the person where the winner is often the person or party who got fewer votes than another person or party is fundamentally broken.
This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:17 AM   #221
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.
"I live in a post-facts world" would take fewer words to type.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:25 AM   #222
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.
You have no reason to reject it either as it is also not logical for an election system where most people get a vote, but some votes count more than others.

The question becomes: What principles do we admire, fairness for all or the accumulation of power by a few?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:41 AM   #223
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"I live in a post-facts world" would take fewer words to type.
I see you're confusing your values with facts. Understandable, that's been the trend in indoctrination lately.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:43 AM   #224
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You have no reason to reject it either as it is also not logical for an election system where most people get a vote, but some votes count more than others.

The question becomes: What principles do we admire, fairness for all or the accumulation of power by a few?
You say that as if that's the dichotomy. But it isn't. A "fair" voting system can still produce accumulation of power by a few.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:46 AM   #225
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You have no reason to reject it either as it is also not logical for an election system where most people get a vote, but some votes count more than others.

The question becomes: What principles do we admire, fairness for all or the accumulation of power by a few?
Minority white rule is good, that's the message from the Trumpsters.
Make Apartheid Great Again!
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:54 AM   #226
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
Well shocking the board's leading Trump cultist sees nothing wrong with Trump being in power despite most peopling not supporting him and now that he has reached that point he will only talk in riddles and truisms.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:57 AM   #227
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well shocking the board's leading Trump cultist sees nothing wrong with Trump being in power despite most peopling not supporting him
The popular vote doesn't actually indicate whether most people support him or not. I shouldn't have to point out this basic fact to you, but apparently I do.

And no, I don't see anything wrong with the person who won an election according to the established rules of the election holding the office that the election was for. Why is that a controversial position?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 10:58 AM   #228
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Minority white rule is good, that's the message from the Trumpsters.
Make Apartheid Great Again!
The racism card. It's inevitable when you have nothing actually worthwhile to say.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:01 AM   #229
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck.

It's a ******* racist!
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:24 AM   #230
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You say that as if that's the dichotomy. But it isn't. A "fair" voting system can still produce accumulation of power by a few.
It can hardly be fair if some people's votes are inherently worth more than others'.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:39 AM   #231
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
It can hardly be fair if some people's votes are inherently worth more than others'.
No, it isn't maximally fair. But why is that a problem? You yourself only mentioned fairness as a means of achieving a more important end, avoiding the concentration of power into the hands of a few. There are more important things than maximal fairness, and fair outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:53 AM   #232
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
It can hardly be fair if some people's votes are inherently worth more than others'.
It's about minority white rule, not fairness.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 11:59 AM   #233
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it isn't maximally fair. But why is that a problem? You yourself only mentioned fairness as a means of achieving a more important end, avoiding the concentration of power into the hands of a few.
You misunderstand. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, I'm referring to some people's votes being worth more than others'. I'm not specifically referring to the Republican's current power grab, despite representing fewer Americans than the Democrats.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There are more important things than maximal fairness, and fair outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes.
That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 12:22 PM   #234
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You misunderstand. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, I'm referring to some people's votes being worth more than others'. I'm not specifically referring to the Republican's current power grab, despite representing fewer Americans than the Democrats.



That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.
It's good if you are in the minority and want to maintain power.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 12:24 PM   #235
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You misunderstand. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, I'm referring to some people's votes being worth more than others'.
Then your definition of "few" is pure nonsense. So is your definition of "concentrating".

Quote:
That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.
That's true, they aren't necessarily better. Which is why that's not a goal for me.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 12:30 PM   #236
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Then your definition of "few" is pure nonsense. So is your definition of "concentrating".
Perhaps you don't understand the terms, then.

Just because you don't like the implications does not mean that what I said was wrong.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's true, they aren't necessarily better. Which is why that's not a goal for me.
What is your goal, that is more important than fairness in an electoral process?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 12:36 PM   #237
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Perhaps you don't understand the terms, then.

Just because you don't like the implications does not mean that what I said was wrong.
True. You're wrong because millions and millions of people aren't "few", and power isn't concentrated when they have only marginally more influence with their votes.

Quote:
What is your goal, that is more important than fairness in an electoral process?
First off, note I said "maximal fairness". Our electoral system is still reasonably fair, honestly.

Producing good outcomes is more important than maximal fairness. That's hard to engineer into a system, though, so I'll settle for something a little more practical to achieve: protecting federalist structure of our government.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 12:49 PM   #238
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
True. You're wrong because millions and millions of people aren't "few", and power isn't concentrated when they have only marginally more influence with their votes.
2 or 3 times or more than some states is only marginally more influence, huh?


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First off, note I said "maximal fairness". Our electoral system is still reasonably fair, honestly.
How do you find it to be reasonably fair?


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Producing good outcomes is more important than maximal fairness. That's hard to engineer into a system, though, so I'll settle for something a little more practical to achieve: protecting federalist structure of our government.
How do you think the Electoral College does this better than a direct election of the President?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 12:57 PM   #239
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
2 or 3 times or more than some states is only marginally more influence, huh?
Given how little influence their more powerful vote still has, yes, it's marginal.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 01:07 PM   #240
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Given how little influence their more powerful vote still has, yes, it's marginal.
With those states, you can win the Presidency with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That is a touch more than "marginal", I'd say.

You can start at 4:18ish for my point, but you should really watch the whole thing.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Also, exactly how does the electoral college protect the federalist structure of our government?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.