Warren on Gay Marriage

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As far as I can remember, there was no talk of gay marriage in the 80's by anyone.

The Libertarian Party has supported same-sex marriage since it was founded in 1971.

 

[laughing dog]

You're quick to label me a fascist but I'm not the one advocating you pay higher taxes to fund my "ought statement" ideologies. Abortion 'ought' to be taxpayer funded. Carbon 'ought' to be taxed so that Elon Musk can get even richer.

First, carbon ought to be priced since emitters are damaging a resource (our climate) with their pollution and a higher price will mean less emissions. And if someone wishes to avoid paying the tax, they simply do not have to emit.

Second, people like you do want others to pay higher taxes. Exempting church property from taxation on the spurious reasoning of the separation of church and state means that others have to pay higher taxes to support public services like fire fighting, roads and police. Moreover, making abortion illegal means higher taxes to enforce that law and to support the resulting unwanted children who are born.

 

[laughing dog]

Unless there is some doubt as to Ms. Warren's or Mr. Sanders sincerity or depth of support for gay rights and gay marriage, does it really matter who came first?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Unless there is some doubt as to Ms. Warren's or Mr. Sanders sincerity or depth of support for gay rights and gay marriage, does it really matter who came first?

Yes. The authenticity vote.

For the American Voter, the ability to grow and change is suspicious.

being able to say "I was one of you back before it was cool!" is far more comforting. The voter hasn't changed his mind about abortion, SSM, CSS, football teams, gun control, or Picard vs. Kirk in 30 years, how can he trust someone who examined both sides of an issue and came to a new understanding in less than 12 years?

So whoever took the side first is the one who is more authentically FOR that side.

Obviously.

 

[PyramidHead]

Unless there is some doubt as to Ms. Warren's or Mr. Sanders sincerity or depth of support for gay rights and gay marriage, does it really matter who came first?

Not by itself, but it fits a pattern and forces people to justify their support for the inferior candidate.

 

[laughing dog]

Unless there is some doubt as to Ms. Warren's or Mr. Sanders sincerity or depth of support for gay rights and gay marriage, does it really matter who came first?

Not by itself, but it fits a pattern and forces people to justify their support for the inferior candidate.

What pattern? Frankly, I am much more worried and concerned about a candidate who does not ever seem to change a position or who thinks that his/her solution is the only solution than someone who is willing to rethink and even change his/her views based on evidence and reason.

 

[PyramidHead]

Unless there is some doubt as to Ms. Warren's or Mr. Sanders sincerity or depth of support for gay rights and gay marriage, does it really matter who came first?

Not by itself, but it fits a pattern and forces people to justify their support for the inferior candidate.

What pattern? Frankly, I am much more worried and concerned about a candidate who does not ever seem to change a position or who thinks that his/her solution is the only solution than someone who is willing to rethink and even change his/her views based on evidence and reason.

You're being disingenuous. Bernie has shifted his views over time as well, but he has never been a Republican, and his current positions are all better than Warren's.

 

[laughing dog]

What pattern? Frankly, I am much more worried and concerned about a candidate who does not ever seem to change a position or who thinks that his/her solution is the only solution than someone who is willing to rethink and even change his/her views based on evidence and reason.

You're being disingenuous. Bernie has shifted his views over time as well, but he has never been a Republican, and his current positions are all better than Warren's.

If he has shifted views over time, then clearly he cannot be trusted using the rubric that changing one's mind is a sign of insincerity. Moreover, he was never a Democrat until 2016.

Whether or not his current positions are all better than Warren's is a matter of opinion not fact. I will say that anyone who wishes to abolish private health insurance without a plan on how to both improve Medicare and fund it so that everyone can get the care they need is either a demogogue or an idiot.

 

[PyramidHead]

What pattern? Frankly, I am much more worried and concerned about a candidate who does not ever seem to change a position or who thinks that his/her solution is the only solution than someone who is willing to rethink and even change his/her views based on evidence and reason.

You're being disingenuous. Bernie has shifted his views over time as well, but he has never been a Republican, and his current positions are all better than Warren's.

If he has shifted views over time, then clearly he cannot be trusted using the rubric that changing one's mind is a sign of insincerity.

Then don't use that rubric. It's not black-and-white, it's a spectrum of consistency and sincerity, which you're trying to frame as all or nothing because seeing it any other way reveals Bernie as better.

Moreover, he was never a Democrat until 2016.

Which is good. Being a non-Democrat because his opinions were ahead of the Democrats is better than being a non-Democrat because you're a Republican.

Whether or not his current positions are all better than Warren's is a matter of opinion not fact. I will say that anyone who wishes to abolish private health insurance without a plan on how to both improve Medicare and fund it so that everyone can get the care they need is either a demogogue or an idiot.

Yikes. Well, let me know when such a candidate is running, I guess. Bernie has detailed proposals for both the transition and the funding, so let's keep the conversation focused.

 

[PyramidHead]

There's changing and there's triangulating. Changing is when you take in new information and alter your views accordingly, which is good; it's usually something that happens randomly in life, and happens whether other people agree with you or not. Triangulating is when you only adopt new positions right before running for political office, and only when the coast has been cleared by others to make them politically acceptable.

 

[fromderinside]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

How does the public benefit by "reigning them in again"? Most people need loans to buy a house, buy a car, finance working capital for a company, and etc. How does it help to make it more difficult to get loans? Would it be better to prevent another banking collapse. Absolutely. But she seems to be more intent on just hurting banks. And that will hurt all of us.

You are supposed to be dead. I read somewhere that all those who get in line to worship such as banks drank cool aid in Jonestown back in the day. ...and isn't that microeconomics guru at U of Chicago dead and forgotten?

If I remember my american history accurately, and I wrote a freshman english paper on it back in ought-59, the notion of making coin by just any old bank was smashed in the era of the  Specie Circular and for good measure when America detached it's currency from gold in 1933. It's belief in soundness based on evidence of power that supports currencies. Deficits don't have all that much to do with it.

Your 'get a loan argument' is wasted empty text. Banks are trustees for personal wealth while financial instruments are ways to game the system. These two functions don't belong under the same roof without strong protections against greed.

 

[laughing dog]

If he has shifted views over time, then clearly he cannot be trusted using the rubric that changing one's mind is a sign of insincerity.

Then don't use that rubric. It's not black-and-white, it's a spectrum of consistency and sincerity, which you're trying to frame as all or nothing because seeing it any other way reveals Bernie as better.

I am not trying to frame anything. You are entitled to your opinion about who is better.

Which is good. Being a non-Democrat because his opinions were ahead of the Democrats is better than being a non-Democrat because you're a Republican.

If what counts are ideas and your “authenticity” then no.

Yikes. Well, let me know when such a candidate is running, I guess. Bernie has detailed proposals for both the transition and the funding, so let's keep the conversation focused.

You mean focusing away from the naked emperor?

 

[PyramidHead]

Which is good. Being a non-Democrat because his opinions were ahead of the Democrats is better than being a non-Democrat because you're a Republican.

If what counts are ideas and your “authenticity” then no.

What are you even saying with those quotation marks. It counts when somebody has been a supporter of a progressive cause for longer than it has been politically popular to do so. It's evidence that their support isn't calculated or phony, but heartfelt. Look, I honestly think Warren has changed her views in a good way on a lot of issues. I don't think she's some kind of sleeper Republican just pretending to be progressive. But she isn't the one to fight for this stuff, because she was fighting against it as recently as 2012, at least regarding trans rights. Her views are good now, but they aren't better than someone who didn't have to publicly reverse his stance during a political campaign. It's like when Biden suddenly decided the Hyde Amendment wasn't so great after all, which I'm sure was also just the organic evolution of his beliefs and not a strategic adjustment to his platform.

The point is that Bernie has advocated for the poor, for prisoners, LGBT, women, and minorities since before it was accepted by the majority of Democrats to do so. In other words, he had to fight harder and more difficult battles against a more trenchant opposition, because he's never had the backing of a major political organization. By comparison, Warren hasn't been vocally supportive of such interests until fairly recently, and we know that prior to that she supported a major political organization who was AGAINST them, so if nothing else that should raise genuine questions about how far she is willing to go in defending them.

Yikes. Well, let me know when such a candidate is running, I guess. Bernie has detailed proposals for both the transition and the funding, so let's keep the conversation focused.

You mean focusing away from the naked emperor?

No, we need to keep focusing on Warren, as the thread is about her.

 

[J842P]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

How does the public benefit by "reigning them in again"? Most people need loans to buy a house, buy a car, finance working capital for a company, and etc. How does it help to make it more difficult to get loans? Would it be better to prevent another banking collapse. Absolutely. But she seems to be more intent on just hurting banks. And that will hurt all of us.

Because "making it easier to get a loan" is bullshit finance talk for "let us create worthless paper to make tons of money and tank the economy and then blame it on people who were irresponsibly taking out loans while our entire industry gets bailed out by entrenched interests in the government."

 

[Half-Life]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating. Leftists pushed and pushed for normalcy and AIDS increased and well....here we are.

But, it's the Christians who didn't care about AIDS. Yep, sure.

Leftists: How do we stop AIDS from spreading?
Christians: Teach gay men not to fornicate.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: But, AIDS will increase if they keep fornicating. We don't want it to increase.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: We give up.
Leftists: OMG, why are AIDS out of control now?!?!

 

[starwater]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating. Leftists pushed and pushed for normalcy and AIDS increased and well....here we are.

But, it's the Christians who didn't care about AIDS. Yep, sure.

Leftists: How do we stop AIDS from spreading?
Christians: Teach gay men not to fornicate.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: But, AIDS will increase if they keep fornicating. We don't want it to increase.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: We give up.
Leftists: OMG, why are AIDS out of control now?!?!

 

[laughing dog]

What are you even saying with those quotation marks. It counts when somebody has been a supporter of a progressive cause for longer than it has been politically popular to do so. It's evidence that their support isn't calculated or phony, but heartfelt. Look, I honestly think Warren has changed her views in a good way on a lot of issues. I don't think she's some kind of sleeper Republican just pretending to be progressive. But she isn't the one to fight for this stuff, because she was fighting against it as recently as 2012, at least regarding trans rights. Her views are good now, but they aren't better than someone who didn't have to publicly reverse his stance during a political campaign. It's like when Biden suddenly decided the Hyde Amendment wasn't so great after all, which I'm sure was also just the organic evolution of his beliefs and not a strategic adjustment to his platform.

The point is that Bernie has advocated for the poor, for prisoners, LGBT, women, and minorities since before it was accepted by the majority of Democrats to do so. In other words, he had to fight harder and more difficult battles against a more trenchant opposition, because he's never had the backing of a major political organization. By comparison, Warren hasn't been vocally supportive of such interests until fairly recently, and we know that prior to that she supported a major political organization who was AGAINST them, so if nothing else that should raise genuine questions about how far she is willing to go in defending them.

You are entitled to your opinion and counterfactual histories (your claim about the majority of Democrats and support for the poor or minorities is
wrong). You don’t have to trust Warren. ]

No, we need to keep focusing on Warren, as the thread is about her.

Coming from someone who posted a mini-defense of Sanders, that is pretty ironic.

 

[Patooka]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating. Leftists pushed and pushed for normalcy and AIDS increased and well....here we are.

But, it's the Christians who didn't care about AIDS. Yep, sure.

Leftists: How do we stop AIDS from spreading?
Christians: Teach gay men not to fornicate.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: But, AIDS will increase if they keep fornicating. We don't want it to increase.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: We give up.
Leftists: OMG, why are AIDS out of control now?!?!

So you think AIDS is caused by "the gays"? Can't say I'm surprised. And when Christians spread lies like wearing a condom increases the likelihood of spreading AIDS, it's pretty fucking obvious Christians don't care about AIDS as much as preserving their bullshit dogma. Don't belive me? One Archbishop tried to put forth the bullshit conspiracy theory that condoms are being imported into Africa already infected with HIV on an unsuspecting general public.

Oh, and for future reference, you see how I linked a news article to back up my argument? For some reason my argument seems more valid than someone who, hypothetically, just spouts random inflammatory bullshit, and then dodges the issue when asked to cite their sources with an agility that would make Baryshnikov envious.

Weird, huh?

 

[Politesse]

When did "Christians" do anything substantive to combat the AIDS crisis? I remember them pointing fingers and assigning blame, that's not the same as addressing it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When did "Christians" do anything substantive to combat the AIDS crisis? I remember them pointing fingers and assigning blame, that's not the same as addressing it.

And blocking efforts at educating the public. Blocking efforts to spread condoms. Blocking efforts to screen donated blood.
The general opinion of the Christains that i recall was, 'don't be gay, and if you are, god sent AIDS to punish you. So fuck you.'