[FEDERALIST] Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Could Be The Left’s Donald Trump

It's not the same, but both can happen. How many people were anti-gay marriage just 20 years ago? Hell that was the stance of the Democrat president at the time. Today something like 67% of the US supports it and it was made law by a conservative SCOTUS. Essentially the liberals and libertarians convincingly won that argument. It got to a point where there simply was no argument against it other than "God says no" and that kind of argument will get you destroyed in a debate.

 

meh

the gay marriage thing was more of an acceptance of the new law the supreme rulers decided we have to follow now. Proposition 8 lost in Kalifornia just 10 years ago. Take away our illusion of choice and we become pretty accepting. I don't think an argument was won, more like a result was accepted. marriage being a Sacrament is actually a pretty good argument to a religious person.

 

I don't think so, those numbers were looking like that BEFORE the SCOTUS made the (correct IMO) ruling making it law. The debate was essentially won within the last decade because it was continually argued and one side simply had no real answers for the points the pro gay marriage side kept raising. The winning argument IMO was that it was a matter of equal protection under the law, a constitutional argument that conservatives who care about the constitution simply had no answer for. The argument stated the fact that marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, not a religious ceremony. Legal marriage has nothing at all to do with religion. As such, the government can not discriminate on the basis of sex which means that they cannot restrict gay people from entering into marriage contracts. It was just a matter of time before they got on board meaning that the only holdouts were those who do their "thinking" with their religion and those aren't enough people to get in the way.

It took a TON of debate to get movement on that issue, but eventually the right side won. That's how things are supposed to happen.

 

If that is the argument that won why is public opinion decidedly against plural marriage? If people now view it simply as a legal argreement to share assets and liabilities it would be higher than the sub 20% it currently sits.

The will of the people (as shown by prop 8) was just simply over turned in the courts and they decided to give it up. There was no democratic process after prop 8 passed and it was just ignored by the government and gay marriages just kept going a few years later.

"It's legal now and there is nothing you can do to change that" is a pretty convincing argument to accept something. You are talking about hundreds and hundreds of court cases across the entire country before the 2013 supreme ruler decision.

 

quote from a strong opponent of gay marriage:

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

-Orson Scott Card

 

Plural marriage is not marriage between 2 people. Gay marriage is.

The will of the people means nothing compared to what the constitution says....and that's a VERY good thing. Now I say that with 1 exception of course, if the will of the people is strong enough to pass a constitutional amendment, then they matter. There's very good reasons why they made it so hard for the mob to fundamentally change the government.

 

I don't see anywhere in the constitution you can defend legalizing a contract between 2 but not three willing participants. Especially if you say the sex of the participants no longer matters. There is nothing special about a two party contract that precludes it from a three party.

You've just redefined what marriage is, not invoked some equal protection right.

 

the constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage. the supreme rulers just hand down laws. they handed down a defacto approval of gay marriage in 2013, which was also the date of that quote, check out how public perception responded.




it wasn't a 20 year battle, it was a stalemate, a massive number of lawsuits going towards liberalization, and then a concession.

 

If the law is that you can have contracts between 2 people, you have to accept contracts between 2 people and you can't discriminate based on sex. That doesn't mean that if there is a law establishing marriage contracts between 2 people that it would apply to 3 people.

A 2 party contract is not a 3 party contract, but a contract between a man and a woman is no different than a contract between a woman and another woman or any other arrangement of 2 parties. It's an equal protection issue. So long as you are treating people equally, it's not a problem.

 

Between 1996 and 2011 the support for gay marriage went from 27% to 53%....how is it you think that's not significant? How is that a "stalemate"? On the oppose side their support fell from 68% to 45%....that's a pretty big swing, and all of that happened BEFORE the SCOTUS ruled on it. I mean, it's good that people accepted the SCOTUS ruling, given that in this instance it was unquestionably the right one, but that doesn't always happen.

For example, here's essentially a stalemate on an issue that the SCOTUS ruled on

 

I think you could pretty easily argue a married couple can be a single party in a contract. They typically are when buying a house, car, forming a business but not when sharing assets and liabilities? I think your entire argument is just based on the law defining marriage which if your previous definition "the fact that marriage is a legal contract between 2 people" what is a legal contract between three people? They are not allowed to enter such a contract?

You've removed the sacrament and tried to keep PART of the definition. But without the founding principle of a religious sacrament, the definition is pointless and it is just a legal contract as you said. 2,3,4,5.

This is the reason I don't think this liberal/libertarian argument convinced anyone.

 

Not a bad comparison, but I'd need data before 1973 when they ruled on it. Public opinion on abortion in the 1950's using the same methodology isn't available though.


You have to remember how much states were getting their ass handed to them in the courts. Did no one make the argument you are making before 2008? Prop 8 had the same outcome as that poll predicts it would. The thing that changed was the court victories.

I consider 2004 to 2010, the period it came to the forefront of politics, a pretty serious stalemate. W advocated for an amendment in 2004.

 

Interesting phenomena with Bobbie's quote again:

********Hell, things are already starting to change now that they've taken on a decent number of immigrants and refugees.....not to mention that they are starting to have an illegal immigration problem so they no longer have a homogeneous and wealthy population anymore, as such crime is starting to rise particularly when it comes to rape (and other sex crimes), assault, and robbery which is forcing them to pay more than ever before when it comes to policing their citizens and jailing criminals.....

Bobbie's lack of awareness as he demonstrates his racism is practically breath taking. I guess it must be the way his parent's raised him that he thinks this way. It frankly puzzle me. Some sort of psychological defense mechanism?

 

That's just the facts guy, the facts are not racist. Again, there's literally nothing racist about that statement.

 

Why would an intellectual heavyweight like Ben Shapiro stoop to debating bartenders? Shouldn't he be focusing on more stable geniuses like the President of the United States or third year students at the local community college? I mean, really.

 

Startling unawareness. Just the fact unless you are trying like your compadre Trump to enforce racism and xenophobia.

It is obvious how this benefits Trump and the billionaire class, but how does this really benefit you and your family and relatives?

 

What utter garbage from Cortez re: Shapiro.

Either ignore or decline, but don't play gender politics.

Ideally she would actually debate him, sharpen her mind, increase her profile, and maybe even learn a thing or two.

So totally disappointed in her missing this opportunity and faceplanting into SJW nonsense.

 

Cortez's response was so terrible even Ted "least liked human on earth" Cruz is dunking on her.

https://m.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ted-Cruz-Ocasio-Cortez-Cenk-Uygur-Ben-Shapiro-13147933.php

 

The thing is, what is or isn't a scientist isn't really determined by anything like doctor. I think the man worked as an engineer, invented something, that makes him more of a scientist than probably 95% of the world.

I think it is wrong too to judge people on if they are a scientist by the level of their degrees, I think you are a scientist if you do or have done science professionally.

While I may not agree there I do agree that Bobby tries to win on as many pedantic points as possible when this

Lol, first you tried to twist what he said and now you are calling him too an intellectual coward. More insults, no substance.

No, there is a huge difference between a formal debate and what they do on TV...that's why they have formal debates...because there is a difference.

And those are nothing like debates, they do not rely at all on charisma and rely solely on countering data.

It's not 'essentially' the same thing, it is the exact opposite of a debate that demands an on the spot answer. For example, you can't gish gallop a study, because the opponent can look at each study you've linked, each point of data, devour it, and respond. This is how science actually advances, not through debates.

No, I worry that people are stupid. Remember Nazi Germany?

In relation to AOC vs Shaprio, why does she have to spend time debating this fool? Why won't Cruz debate Cenk...Why won't Cruz debate Beto?

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs

You're so against racism if it's someone you don't like spouting it or against white people, but let it be your boy Shapiro calling out millions of people like he did.

HE DID NOT SAY PALESTINIANS. HE SAID ARABS.

There is a HUUUGE difference there. If he said Palestinians, it's still ignorant but at least he's talking about a nation in general. The term Arab is something that's been used for a while for people that come from the middle-east.

Arabs, as linked above, is a term that does encompass an ethnicity, an ethnicity, by all social means, is just a race. It would be no different if he said "Latinos" or "Blacks" he knows he was wrong by the way because he spent the entire day trying to explain "I do not mean ALL Arabs! Sorry!"



Haha, using even the... "Wait...NOT ALL..." excuse after his initial statement. The fact that he's still popular just goes to show you that racism against Arabs and people that others think are Muslim is just generally accepted today. It's fine to say they are going to just bomb everything and rape your wimminz, the right just shrugs and applauds even at that, as you've shown.

while he backed out of his statement one has to wonder if there is reason to believe him? He's spent a career building islamophobia so I doubt he didn't mean all arabs. He's been pumping that "Muslims are terrorists" crap and that, over most things, is what made him popular. The right, of course champions this racist.