Have to check into the rest of his politics but from this bit…I want to see this guy go national level. Sincere. Principled. Sounds smart on issue…or at the least very prepared.
hm, interesting but you have to realize that what he is saying is that he should decide, basically. Someone has to decide, after all. If not the majority then which minority?? Actually a better system is to say that whoever is affected by the decision should be the ones deciding, with a share of the say that is adjusted to how much they are affected. Then you have to decide how much someone is affected…. some sort of market mechanism maybe so everyone has the same total amount but they can divide it up among different decisions as they see fit.
Then how do you get a system like that adopted…basically you convince people that that is a good idea and then pass it by a supermajority or concensus or something and pressure people to go forwards with it as they themselves said it was a good idea after all…
Wrong. He is saying there are things that are fundamentally at odds with the spirit of our Constitution and our ideals as a country. The rule of law is nothing if not a denial of the immediate passion. Of both the individual *and* majority passion.
Along with the idea of equality and fairness, the US Constitution also enshrines many protections for the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
RT @srl: Wow -- Ohio State University is advising students against voting in person on election day because Ohio's new strict voter ID rule… 8 hours ago
RT @boehninglab: @drugmonkeyblog My wife does focus groups with teachers as part of an education research project, and it requires IRB appr… 8 hours ago
DrugMonkey 
January 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm
LOVE this. What a fantastic answer
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm
oh yeah, almost forgot this was h/t @Gertyz
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 7:04 pm
thank you for posting this.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Have to check into the rest of his politics but from this bit…I want to see this guy go national level. Sincere. Principled. Sounds smart on issue…or at the least very prepared.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 11:52 pm
I am certainly interested to hear more about his politics after this. It would be great to see him unseat Christie.
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 5:00 am
I Like the way he explicitly made it *not* about attacking Christie.
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 11:28 pm
For those new to my guy Cory Booker I highly recommend the documentary Street Fight.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:01 am
Hmmm, interesting guy
http://www.pbs.org/pov/streetfight/film_description.php
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 5:20 am
I’m late to post (and read), but this is pure awesomeness.
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 8:48 am
Awesomesauce!
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 10:24 pm
hm, interesting but you have to realize that what he is saying is that he should decide, basically. Someone has to decide, after all. If not the majority then which minority?? Actually a better system is to say that whoever is affected by the decision should be the ones deciding, with a share of the say that is adjusted to how much they are affected. Then you have to decide how much someone is affected…. some sort of market mechanism maybe so everyone has the same total amount but they can divide it up among different decisions as they see fit.
Then how do you get a system like that adopted…basically you convince people that that is a good idea and then pass it by a supermajority or concensus or something and pressure people to go forwards with it as they themselves said it was a good idea after all…
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 4:54 am
Wrong. He is saying there are things that are fundamentally at odds with the spirit of our Constitution and our ideals as a country. The rule of law is nothing if not a denial of the immediate passion. Of both the individual *and* majority passion.
Along with the idea of equality and fairness, the US Constitution also enshrines many protections for the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
LikeLike