|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland25281 Posts
Conservatives are a broad church (pun somewhat intended)
Extremely religious conservatives absolutely would ban anything outside the heterosexual norm if they were in sole power. It took Northern Ireland a comparative age to legalise same-sex marriage and that was the demographic that was holding it up. At times in outright opposition to their other positions prior and post, namely Unionists who usually complain if we’re in any way misaligned with the mainland UK, which we absolutely were on this issue.
Mr Reaganonomics may not give a solitary fuck who’s banging who, or be an out homosexual or anything else.
So yeah perhaps it behooves us to be a bit more specific in terms of accuracy or clarity.
On the other hand I don’t see why BJ will nitpick everything in such a manner when he’ll interchangeably use ‘the left’ and ‘local legislators in San Francisco so frequently
|
Norway28665 Posts
I'm honestly pretty certain he doesn't even disagree with the main point of what you said, which is why he's not arguing against that. 'Conservatives have a history of making life harder for homosexuals in various ways' isn't a controversial statement and you can go further than that, too. He's just arguing against the literal statement. I think it's fine to be annoyed by that too tbh (I didn't think you actually thought outlawing homosexuality was on the republican agenda) - I'm just saying that the discussion doesn't have to go on for more than 2 posts if one responds with 'was hyperbolic'. 
|
I think we can clearly see if you give conservatives an inch these days, they will take a mile.
We went from pretending like roe v wade was settled law, to overturning it and saying its a state issue, to discussing national abortion bans, to discussing banning IVF and birth control.
Make no mistake, if they make inroads on anti-lgtbq laws the desired end result is to ban homosexuality.
|
Norway28665 Posts
On August 13 2024 06:43 WombaT wrote:
Conservatives are a broad church (pun somewhat intended)
Extremely religious conservatives absolutely would ban anything outside the heterosexual norm if they were in sole power. It took Northern Ireland a comparative age to legalise same-sex marriage and that was the demographic that was holding it up. At times in outright opposition to their other positions prior and post, namely Unionists who usually complain if we’re in any way misaligned with the mainland UK, which we absolutely were on this issue.
Mr Reaganonomics may not give a solitary fuck who’s banging who, or be an out homosexual or anything else.
So yeah perhaps it behooves us to be a bit more specific in terms of accuracy or clarity.
On the other hand I don’t see why BJ will nitpick everything in such a manner when he’ll interchangeably use ‘the left’ and ‘local legislators in San Francisco so frequently
Being opposed to same sex marriage also isn't banning homosexuality, though. Norway did actually have a ban on homosexuality up until 1972 - up until this point, one could theoretically have been prosecuted for being an openly practicing homosexual. And we didn't legalize homosexual marriage until 2009. Wanting to reinstate the former is wanting to outlaw homosexuality - wanting to make homosexual marriage illegal is wanting to make homosexual marriage illegal.
Both those dates are shockingly recent, tbh, with Norway being a 'liberal bastion' or whatever. (We were the sixth country in the world to legalize homosexual marriage).
Not gonna spend more time being BJ's advocate (for now) but I believe he does what he does largely because this forum is full of people who will nitpick the right and he wants to be a balancing force. I've seen him argue from the other side on a different forum where the posters leaned more 'insane nutjob conspiracy libertarian'. And then some is a genuine grievance with part of the agenda and rhetoric of some of the left.
|
Sadly, all you get when many think that people on the right (or the loud one's at least) are stupid or insane is an echo chamber with little to no rhetoric left. Slinging mud is not a good way to build bridges with half the population. But I think I've said something similar before..
|
Northern Ireland25281 Posts
On August 13 2024 07:30 Uldridge wrote:
Sadly, all you get when many think that people on the right (or the loud one's at least) are stupid or insane is an echo chamber with little to no rhetoric left. Slinging mud is not a good way to build bridges with half the population. But I think I've said something similar before..
Some people are stupid, or hateful, or any number of other things. C’est la vie.
I’ve had many a productive conversation with conservatives over the years, hell find some commonality on particular topics.
I’m not particularly interested in trying to seek common ground with people who think say, the sun shines out of Donald Trump’s arse. It’s just not going to happen and is a waste of both of our times.
Behave like an adult, have actual principles that inform your politics and lend themselves to some consistency of worldview sure, we can have some civil dialogue, even if it ultimately ends up in ‘agree to disagree’ territory.
For other folks, it’s not a desire to live in echo chambers, or to refuse to discuss ideas, it’s just a wholesale rejection of right populism and all that entails. Entertaining such nonsense just gives it a legitimacy it doesn’t merit.
|
On August 13 2024 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:I'm honestly pretty certain he doesn't even disagree with the main point of what you said, which is why he's not arguing against that. 'Conservatives have a history of making life harder for homosexuals in various ways' isn't a controversial statement and you can go further than that, too. He's just arguing against the literal statement. I think it's fine to be annoyed by that too tbh (I didn't think you actually thought outlawing homosexuality was on the republican agenda) - I'm just saying that the discussion doesn't have to go on for more than 2 posts if one responds with 'was hyperbolic'.
Eh, it's just a dumb way to approach things from BJ. There's plenty of room for "I know you're likely being hyperbolic, but republicans don't literally want to outlaw homosexuality". Instead, we got what we got and he's correctly being called out for arguing in a stupid and empty way.
If BJ wants to have an actual discussion, there are ways to encourage that. If BJ means to simply educate, he could reference GH's educational quip a few pages back. The way BJ did choose to post was piss, and he recieved piss in return.
Read his post back, and tell me he deserves better.
|
On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote:
Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s?
The 1950s? Sodomy laws ended with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. It was a 6-3 decision with 3 of the 5 conservative justices dissenting. One of those dissenting justices, who's still on the court, recently expressed the desire to "reconsider" Lawrence v. Texas after overturning Roe.
I don't think sodomy laws are coming back, but they're not nearly as old or fringe as they should be.
|
On August 10 2024 18:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote:So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve. TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle. He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars. I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame. It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them. The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city. Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles. Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers Show nested quote + Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said. It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.” This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
This has little to do with what I said or excuses what Trump said. You can't just expect people to lower their standards because "yeah he always lies and says dumb weird shit all the time we should all expect that." I listed out very clearly that electric cars did not show to be heavier than trucks. Vague "yeah I mean if cars get heavier that'll be bad because we know what that causes." Does not justify someone saying that they are two and a half times heavier than regular cars. I said it was a revolutionary air port moment because he probably ment two and a half tons and not two and a half times. That's a massive difference that the types of people who still give this guy any credibility at all won't understand.
He's the republican presidential nominee people believe the shit he says. I get it that we all have a very low bar for conservatives intelligence these days but come on. If we want to have some sort of shared reality we can't just excuse the guy who's projecting a different reality to so many people.
|
On August 13 2024 09:58 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote:
Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? The 1950s? Sodomy laws ended with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. It was a 6-3 decision with 3 of the 5 conservative justices dissenting. One of those dissenting justices, who's still on the court, recently expressed the desire to "reconsider" Lawrence v. Texas after overturning Roe. I don't think sodomy laws are coming back, but they're not nearly as old or fringe as they should be.
Thank you for taking the time to actually look up a specific, relevant case. Sodomy laws and banning homosexuality have apparently been issues even into the early 2000s.
In that same year, 2003, polls were taken to ask about public opinion too:
"Gallup has asked the public about the issue since 1977, and the latest results -- from mid-May of this year -- show that 59% of the public says homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 37% say they should not be." https://news.gallup.com/poll/8722/six-americans-agree-gay-sex-should-legal.aspx
37% still wanted to ban homosexuality in the United States, clearly making it an issue for some people (even as those homophobes started to lose political power). Furthermore, while I don't think the political affiliation of the polled individuals were recorded, it's probably safe to assume that nearly all of the 37% were conservatives / on the right, meaning that a majority of Republicans polled still wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003. That's consistent with Lawrence v. Texas, where most of the conservative judges wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003 (as you pointed out).
So even into the early 2000s, we see that most Republicans were probably still leaning towards banning homosexuality. They just didn't have as much political power to push that bigoted agenda.
|
On August 13 2024 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Furthermore, while I don't think the political affiliation of the polled individuals were recorded, it's probably safe to assume that nearly all of the 37% were conservatives / on the right, meaning that a majority of Republicans polled still wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003. That's consistent with Lawrence v. Texas, where most of the conservative judges wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003 (as you pointed out).
So even into the early 2000s, we see that most Republicans were probably still leaning towards banning homosexuality. They just didn't have as much political power to push that bigoted agenda.
There is no need to guess from half-assumptions. Your own article says that in the sample among conservatives 46% thought it should be illegal and among Republicans 42% thought it should be illegal when asked. Which gets to what's really going on. If you call people up at their homes and ask them things, they will say good = legal and bad = illegal. This doesn't transfer to actual caring, campaigning, or proposal - you just can't find anyone campaigning in that direction besides the Westboro Baptist Church - the vestigial sodomy laws were largely not enforced to begin with, but they were there to provide opportunistic misjustice for those in power as is the purpose of most laws - there's a municipality in the US where it's illegal not to have a gun but it's not enforced. Lawrence v. Texas was not a decision whether to "ban homosexuality" any more than Roe v. Wade or Dobbs are about whether to ban abortion.
|
On August 13 2024 13:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Furthermore, while I don't think the political affiliation of the polled individuals were recorded, it's probably safe to assume that nearly all of the 37% were conservatives / on the right, meaning that a majority of Republicans polled still wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003. That's consistent with Lawrence v. Texas, where most of the conservative judges wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003 (as you pointed out).
So even into the early 2000s, we see that most Republicans were probably still leaning towards banning homosexuality. They just didn't have as much political power to push that bigoted agenda. There is no need to guess from half-assumptions. Your own article says that in the sample among conservatives 46% thought it should be illegal and among Republicans 42% thought it should be illegal when asked. Which gets to what's really going on. If you call people up at their homes and ask them things, they will say good = legal and bad = illegal. This doesn't transfer to actual caring, campaigning, or proposal - you just can't find anyone campaigning in that direction besides the Westboro Baptist Church - the vestigial sodomy laws were largely not enforced to begin with, but they were there to provide opportunistic misjustice for those in power as is the purpose of most laws - there's a municipality in the US where it's illegal not to have a gun but it's not enforced. Lawrence v. Texas was not a decision whether to "ban homosexuality" any more than Roe v. Wade or Dobbs are about whether to ban abortion.
Thanks for pointing that out! I missed the table with that information (on my phone screen). Nearly half of the Republicans wanted to ban homosexuality x.x And a bunch of Democrats too, back then!
"If you call people up at their homes and ask them things, they will say good = legal and bad = illegal."
What percent of people polled say this? Source please? Morality isn't the same as legality.
|
as an ex elon fan, i am so sorry for what was unleashed onto our political scene today
at least we got to see an elderly Trump slurring around while elon tried to butt in "yeah yeah" 400 times to change the subject
luckily Harris/Walz is a momentum engine
|
On August 13 2024 13:55 Husyelt wrote:
as an ex elon fan, i am so sorry for what was unleashed onto our political scene today
at least we got to see an elderly Trump slurring around while elon tried to butt in "yeah yeah" 400 times to change the subject
luckily Harris/Walz is a momentum engine
Was anything interesting said? I heard that Elon Musk had like 45 minutes of tech issues at the beginning of his Trump interview, but I didn't have a chance to listen yet. Did they just stroke each other's ego?
|
On August 13 2024 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 13:55 Husyelt wrote:
as an ex elon fan, i am so sorry for what was unleashed onto our political scene today
at least we got to see an elderly Trump slurring around while elon tried to butt in "yeah yeah" 400 times to change the subject
luckily Harris/Walz is a momentum engine Was anything interesting said? I heard that Elon Musk had like 45 minutes of tech issues at the beginning of his Trump interview, but I didn't have a chance to listen yet. Did they just stroke each other's ego?
No, Trump steamrolled Musk while Musk did his best Sean Hannity impression. Just watch any interview with Sean Hannity, its more watchable and basically the same thing. Musk's speech cadence, stammering, and brown nosing in this interview was unbearable.
Trump spent the whole time doing a stream of conciousness campaign speech while Musk spent the whole time stamming and saying yeah. Trump's biggest strength is when he's in hostile environments. When its a hug box, he's mind numbingly boring and low energy.
The only takeaway is that Musk is still a parasite who begs for government handouts at every instance, spending a whole chunk of the conservation begging to given half the portfolios in a future Trump Administration, and that Trump really does feel old with Biden out of the picture.
The only interesting thing I noticed was Musk's desperate attempt to get Trump to suggest the assassination attempt was some conspiracy and only happened because of DEI initiatives making the Secret Service incompetent. Except Trump wasn't really biting Musk's attempt to push the conversation that direction because I get the impression that Trump legitmately really likes the Secret Service assigned to him and knows all of them very well.
|
Northern Ireland25281 Posts
On August 13 2024 13:55 Husyelt wrote:
as an ex elon fan, i am so sorry for what was unleashed onto our political scene today
at least we got to see an elderly Trump slurring around while elon tried to butt in "yeah yeah" 400 times to change the subject
luckily Harris/Walz is a momentum engine
An X-fan surely?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/13/politics/fact-check-trump-musk-20-false-claims/index.html
Man if nothing else Trump does keep many a fact-checker employed, possibly the biggest growing sector of the economy since he came to political prominence
|
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
|
On August 13 2024 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 09:58 Severedevil wrote:On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote:
Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? The 1950s? Sodomy laws ended with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. It was a 6-3 decision with 3 of the 5 conservative justices dissenting. One of those dissenting justices, who's still on the court, recently expressed the desire to "reconsider" Lawrence v. Texas after overturning Roe. I don't think sodomy laws are coming back, but they're not nearly as old or fringe as they should be. Thank you for taking the time to actually look up a specific, relevant case. Sodomy laws and banning homosexuality have apparently been issues even into the early 2000s. In that same year, 2003, polls were taken to ask about public opinion too: "Gallup has asked the public about the issue since 1977, and the latest results -- from mid-May of this year -- show that 59% of the public says homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 37% say they should not be." https://news.gallup.com/poll/8722/six-americans-agree-gay-sex-should-legal.aspx 37% still wanted to ban homosexuality in the United States, clearly making it an issue for some people (even as those homophobes started to lose political power). Furthermore, while I don't think the political affiliation of the polled individuals were recorded, it's probably safe to assume that nearly all of the 37% were conservatives / on the right, meaning that a majority of Republicans polled still wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003. That's consistent with Lawrence v. Texas, where most of the conservative judges wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003 (as you pointed out). So even into the early 2000s, we see that most Republicans were probably still leaning towards banning homosexuality. They just didn't have as much political power to push that bigoted agenda.
To add to this, people are mistaken to believe that the majority stops oppression. Roe v Wade was overturned by a large minority while a clear majority of Americans (and especially women) was in favor of abortion rights. The only thing required to overcome the old ruling was an unbalanced SCOTUS which was formed non-democratically by the democratic president. Thus democracy can quite provably be destroyed from within.
So, in and of itself, democracy is not powerful enough to stop oppression. Homosexuality will therefore not be protected either by democracy. It'll be protected by those powerful and willing enough to protect it. If those individuals make an unexpected shift towards a ban, then there will be a ban.
|
That's all fine and dandy, until you get mobs in the streets, executing powerful people because they're nibbling at acquired freedoms. So executing your power fantasy only gets you so far, you need to keep the massas calm enough.
|
On August 13 2024 19:19 Uldridge wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, until you get mobs in the streets, executing powerful people because they're nibbling at acquired freedoms. So executing your power fantasy only gets you so far, you need to keep the massas calm enough.
People don't revolt (certainly not successfully) just because the law isn't exactly what they want. Where's the revolution right now if that were the case? Why does Roe v Wade remain overturned?
If same-sex marriage gets banned, it gets banned. There won't be a revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
