No. Like this is basic civics. Where do rights come from? How are they granted? How are they protected? This is a very basic philosophy that has underpinned the entire American project since it was birthed. Rights are innate to the individual. This is the foundational principle of liberalism. The changes that have occurred legally have been about redefining who is included as a person. More inclusion in that group = better. Total inclusion = ideal. The Republican Party is working to redefine individuals to exclude them from the group of people that have rights. This is where the country started and we have (thankfully) moved away from. The Republican Party moving backwards on this issue is regressive and anti-democratic. Which is what this entire discussion has been about.
The party didn’t really shift left on race though, individuals just realigned based on race. The Democratic Party shift on race came in the 60’s. When the election of a black man made it clear to white america that it wasn’t just rhetoric, a big chunk got uncomfortable. And to pander to that group, the Republican Party got to stop pretending that they weren’t about white nationalism and just be open about it.
Wrong. Sexuality is an unavoidable element of human life and you are bombarded with it in TV, movies, radio, discussions with friends, in schools, and at home, and you have always been from the time you begin interacting with other humans.
I will disagree with open-minded people being open to everything. I wouldn’t want a kid to be exposed to two gay people having sex any more than I would want them exposed to heterosexual sex at too young an age, but why is knowing these people exist an issue? By the same token, Alabama just had a state holiday for Confederates Day, but why are they so opposed to talk about why the Confederacy is t a thing or the after effects of the laws after the war they lost? It’s a case of shitty people pushing their morality on their ideas of right and wrong than some asinine idea that left wing parents are ok with everything. That’s a horrible faith argument.
You can’t complain about the problem with Democracy when we rarely see a true Democracy. South Dakota has the exact same Senatorial representation at California. The idea that people dont like your policies has been met with, well let’s let fewer people vote. The person with the most Presidential votes does t always win. We set up a shitty style of democracy and people bitch when it doesn’t work. It actually works exactly the way it was set up.
This is the one that makes me smh. I mean, they glorify the war yet throw a fuckign fit if you want to discuss the causes and ramifications of the war. It baffles me how they pick and choose what parts of history they want to discuss.
People lacking a fundamental understanding of the philosophy of liberalism and what left and right wing actually mean is killing any chance this country ever had of living up to the promise on which it was allegedly founded. No patriotic American should ever be proud to identify as “right wing” as that philosophy is antithetical to the core ideals of American democracy. Conservative is fine and has a place in American politics, but right wingers should absolutely be ostracized.
Your entire discussion seems to be there should be different rules for each party. Reasonable minds would say that's not an effective way to run a government.
What the fuck are you talking about? My entire point has been that there should be one set of rules for all parties. And that those rules should be the simple premise that democracy and inclusion in that democracy are good for America. I wouldn’t think that would be a controversial stance but that’s exactly the point. It is controversial to be pro-democracy and inclusion in today’s America.
Democracy and inclusion don't mesh the way you're presenting them. Democracy by its nature gives the power to the majority, which isn't necessarily inclusive. Which is why our government was set up with checks and balances to protect minority interests.
Do you not understand liberalism and the Declaration of Independence? The Bill of Rights? Is that the problem here? I feel like there’s a fundamental knowledge gap here.
i don't understand why the suscription model based on # of followers never gets discussed. it's so simple to me. the marketing/outreach you can do via Twitter >>>> ads or targeted e-mails, just come up with some pricing tiers for XYZ # of followers = $$$/month. everyone will pay it because it will still be more cost effective than any other type of advertising ...
You're speaking in very broad terms here. Going to need a substantive example to continue the debate.
I’m going broad because the entire discussion has been about liberalism this whole time. The Republican Party is regressive and illiberal. That’s the statement. And you can’t really argue it. It’s an objective statement of fact.
They hate liberalism but put so much money in to liberal windowdressing, like undercutting the log cabin republicans with goproud to say gays actually want less rights
Side convo - will Elon fix the app so that the stupid red notification 1 stops appearing for no reason?
Even if we agree that Republicans are regressive and illiberal, I'm not sure that's a good faith argument to argue Republicans shouldn't be allowed to legislate. That tends to completely contradict the concept of democracy.
the numbers i've heard are like $5 per 100k followers or something, dunno how corp marketing budgets work but that sounds reasonable to me. more reach than a Super Bowl ad buy i would think ...
it's why it's such a shitty biz compared to it's reach and status, trying to do ad rev when they have no chance of competiting with Google/Facebook. subscription is the path forward
You think you should still have a say in government despite the majority of people voting against you? How does this make sense as being democracy?
It appears that VaxRule is arguing even if they win the majority of seats in congress, they shouldn't be able to legislate their agenda. That's what I can't reconcile in his "democracy" argument.
ya damn right they shouldn't be able to legislate their agenda if it's antithetical to the tenents that keep a democracy afloat in the first place (IE, trying to overturn an election) ...
If your child consistently sticks their finger in a light socket and shocks themselves, is the answer “oh well, that’s just what my child will do” or do you attempt to get them to stop. These people have shown they only care about legislating in the worst way humanly possible with no regard to help the people that voted for them in nearly every case. Other than saying “that’s what they’re going to do” why should they be allowed to legislate the way they are doing now? Just because we did shitty forever doesn’t mean we need to do shitty forever.
Nobody is saying Republicans are denied the right to legislate. What we are saying is that they cannot use simple legislation to deny basic constitutional rights. Again, because those rights aren’t granted by the legislature and therefore cannot be taken away by it. American rights are conferred upon an individual simply by them existing. That’s the entire point of America.