Everything wrong with the Texas Republican Party Platform

[ZeroT21]

Lots of people have just stopped thinking by themselves and simply follow the current trend and norm set by today's society, and if it does not work out they'll just rage out and protest over it

 

[Deleted member 586536]

One I don't think was in your post was that the Texas GOP does not believe in requiring a safety inspection for cars--so, it would allow cars that are barely functional or at risk onto the road, which seems like an incredible threat to all drivers. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to require cars pass a mechanic's test.

I proably missed that. I went through roughly 33 pages worth of content. It costed my sanity

 

[KitChan]

Toxic masculinity in the 90s: Calling someone a girl for doing something perceived to be non masculine.

Toxic masculinity in 2022: Calling someone a man for replacing their testosterone with estrogen, growing a pair of tits, putting on dresses and getting surgery to turn their penis inside out.

 

[mrdude]

Lots of people have just stopped thinking by themselves and simply follow the current trend and norm set by today's society, and if it does not work out they'll just rage out and protest over it

That's why they get laughed at, riducluded, and called NPC's that we can meme about. They resemble a of bunch cloned brains in different and often strange looking bodies. They have hive mind mentality and are similar to the Borg. I have attached a picture of a typical lefty NPC, this is how many of them may as well look. I probably should have stuck in a speech bubble with "blah blah blah" or "me, me, me", coming out of them as that's about all that seem's to emit from their mouths.

 

[Foxi4]

We wouldn’t have this bizarre argument over marriage if the state did the right thing and removed itself from the matter entirely. State-sanctioned marriage is obsolete.

 

[FAST6191]

https://texasgop.org/platform/

I'll be quoting direct lines, I'm going to be spacing between quotes, and my responses. This is going to be very, very long.

"6) Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural woman."

in other words against gay marriage.

"We support the defunding of “climate justice” initiatives, the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency, and repeal of the Endangered Species Act."

So in other words, they don't want people to have clean drinking water, don't want any limits on companies polluting water ways, don't want any interference for endangered species. Well they already got part of that due to the supreme court

"Carbon Tax: We oppose all efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We further urge the US Senate to defeat the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation, as it is outside the authority of the US Constitution."

So in other words "We want to give more money to oil and gas giants"

"We oppose any distribution of taxpayer dollars to unions."

Anti union

"We believe the Minimum Wage Act should be repealed."

No minimum wage, have fun being paid astronomically like shit.

"We support the immediate repeal of Dodd-Frank legislation."

Oh, soo... the legistlation that is preventing another 2008?
That's cool. It is defined as the following:
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is a series of federal regulations passed to prevent future financial crises.
So that's cool, they want the reckless investing happening again, because capitalism can't do anything bad.

"We oppose all efforts to further regulate the internet in the United States or internationally."

Ah of course, so you want your ISP to throttle or limit what you can see right? Not like we already don't get a choice in our internet providers.

"The Republican Party of Texas calls on our Congressional Delegation to push for reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to limit the ability of online social media platforms to censor the speech of citizens in the new digital town square which they currently control."

So... you want Nazi's and pedos to be on the internet? Because uh, that's what moderators have to do. Along with you know, straight up racism? Do we want another 4chan?

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a direct violation of Article 1,
Section 10, and Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution and shall be rejected by Texas and all its officials.
We support the electoral college."

So in other words, both they don't support doing a popular vote, and continue to support a broken electoral collage system that can be gerrymandered for their own use.

"We support the right to recall our elected officials."
.... WHAT. Oh so in other words: we support the right to overwrite the will of the people, but now even more brazenly by removing electors and putting in ones we like

"We support a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the United States, and one of no more than two official languages of all US territories and other possessions."
This is just straight up racist. No like actually. We have multiple different races here. I've seen people speak in Japanese, Chinese, and Spanish. Considering that Texas's neighbor is Mexico. I have a strong suspicion this is to get at those "dirty folk"

"We support legislation ensuring that the parents' rights to raise and educate their children are protected in Texas law as a fundamental, constitutional right and that there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interest of their children."

Considering that those parent's have been about banning the word gay out of existence, and LGBTQ people. Yeah I don't see that ending well.

"We urge the complete repeal of the hate crimes laws, since ample laws are currently in effect to punish criminal behavior towards other persons."

Oh so in other words, you want to not stop... racism... yikes. Because ample laws are definitely not in place.

"Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education should be abolished, and the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency should be prohibited."

.... wow. I don't think I need to explain why we need a educated populous to make sound decisions.

"We urge school administrators and officials not to infringe on Texas school students’ and staffs’ rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents, including the Bible as their basis. Students have the right to exhibit religious items on school property."

And this one is painfully loaded. The biggest problem with this statement, is that teachers are NOT allowed to express religion, specifically if they are a public school teacher, and as such, part of the government. Because the government itself is not allowed to cross the boundaries between church and state. Doing so would mean the government is supporting a religion.

"We support objective teaching of scientific theories, such as life origins and
climate change. These shall be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data
is produced. Teachers and students shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories
openly, without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Are you... are you kidding me. "Challangable"
Really. Boy I can sure challenge climate change, and say it doesn't exist, and everyone gets to say that I'm right. Even though it does exist, and I would be factually wrong to say that. The planet is abnormally heating due to CO2 emissions, there is a strong increase in CO2 past the normal line as the earth has never passed a certain amount of CO2 levels.

"We reject Critical Race Theory as a post-Marxist ideology that seeks to undermine the system of law and order itself and to reduce individualsto their group identity alone. We support legislation to remove this ideology from government programs,
including education involving race, discrimination, and racial awareness. To facilitate the appreciation of
our American identity, the contrast between freedom and the tyrannical history of socialism/communism
throughout history must be taught. Students shall pledge allegiance to the United States and Texas flags
daily to instill patriotism. Students have the right to display patriotic items on school property. Schools
should have the options to display the National Motto “In God We Trust.”

...... So in other words, you support removing education of slavery... boy does that fit with the whole proposal to soften slavery. And that you want children to be obedient entirely to their country, without asking a single question. "Facilitate the appreciation" alone wants to make me barf. Do you not realize Hitler did the exact fucking same thing? teaching the generations under him that the country their in is entirely infallible. And then then go talk about "tyrannical history of socialism/communism" even though Britain had several colonies and capitalist.
Nazi Germany was state capitalist. In the sense that Hitler allowed your business to exist if it helped his goals, and you to profit on it. We literately did manifest destiny, because land=money. And kicked out the natives of their own lands for essentially fucking profit. We literately fucking installed a dictatorship into Cuba, actively supporting it, and it took a revolt to throw us out, and we did it because we didn't want Cuba going socialist. overthrowing their democratic system in the process. And one of the major reasons the Cuban missile crisis happened FFS.

"We demand the State Legislature pass a law prohibiting the teaching of sex education, sexual health, or sexual choice or identity in any public school in any grade whatsoever, or disseminating or permitting the dissemination by any party of any material regarding the same. All school districts, individual schools, or charter schools are prohibited from contracting with or making any payment to any third party for material concerning any of the above topics. Until this prohibition goes into
effect, sexual education shall only utilize sexual risk avoidance programs and promote abstinence outside
of marriage. Before a student may be provided with human sexuality or family planning instruction, the
district must obtain the written consent of the student’s parent or guardian [Opt-In status]."

So straight up more anti LGBTQ. Since they even say "sexual choice or identity" So anything out of the being heterosexual, will not be discussed or taught. And nor do they want to teach about how condoms or birth control works, while also banning abortions. They even say " utilize sexual risk avoidance programs and promote abstinence outside of marriage" which is absurd.

"Identity: The official position of the Texas schools shall be that there are only two genders:
biological male and biological female. We oppose transgender normalizing curriculum and pronoun use."

oh hey, more erasing of trans people from existence.

"United Nations: The United Nations is a detriment to the sovereignty of the United States and other
countries, and because of this we support:
a. Our withdrawal from the current United Nations.
b. The removal of the United Nations from United States soil.
c. The rejection of all Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 policies and programs"

Agenda 21 is a non binding action plan to be more sustainable so we don't end up fucking ourselves. and Agenda 2030 is more sustainable development, and in hopes maybe ending poverty too. So in other words, they want people to still be in
poverty, and for us to recklessly abuse the planet!

"We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification."

In other words, they support people being homophobic or trans-phobic if their religion allows it, and you can't sue over that.

"c. Abortion is not healthcare."

So when saving the mother from death via getting an abortion, your health insurance won't cover that.

"The Republican Party of Texas opposes medication of the drinking water supply of the state of Texas, including but not limited to fluoridation."

So in other words, you want teeth to rot faster and easier, the reason we did it was for the general public health. I'm sure the dental industry will be happy with that choice with their new found profits.

"
We support Medicaid block grants to the states and returning Medicaid to its
original purpose to be a temporary assistance. We oppose any further expansion of Medicaid."
In otherwords, we don't want public healthcare, because private healthcare makes us money.

"We support appropriate limits on the length of time to receive Social
Security disability benefits for all but those truly not able to do ANY kind of paid employment."

Oh so... anti disabled. Wow that fits so well with the one before it.

"We support legislation such as the Preborn Non-Discrimination Act (Pre-
NDA) to close existing discriminatory loopholes that fail to protect preborn children suspected of having a "fetal anomaly" or disability,"
Great on paper, until you realize that there will be people who may not be able to hold any job. So your now forcing them to exist, and suffer simultaneously. What a GREAT combination.

"VA: We support replacing the Veterans Administration with a commercial insurance
plan that allows eligible veterans to obtain health services from any licensed provider."
So you want war vets... to be price gouged like the rest of us. What a great service!

"Pornography Crisis: The State of Texas shall recognize that pornography is a public health crisis."

Oh so the obesity crisis, the climate crisis, the mental health crisis, the poverty crisis, the housing crisis, and homeless crisis are all not that important. But sex! Now sex is a sin. What a great and totally not stupid focus. Let's not fix homelessness, or obesity, instead, you should focus on how there's too much fucking and not enough birthing.

"We oppose gender norming in the military. Transgendered persons
should not serve in the military as a special class; no special considerations or medical treatment shall be
required or offered."

Trans people getting kicked down the stairs even further.

"We believe all historical war memorials, including Confederate monuments,
in Texas shall be protected from future removal or defacement and that those monuments that have been
removed should be restored to their historical locations."

Maybe having confederate monuments still out and about, tells everyone that you still support slavery, and that maybe, just maybe, those people don't deserve to have monuments? Crazy thought.

"Gender Identity Facilities in Businesses: We support enacting legislation in the State of Texas
ensuring that:
a. No government entity in the state shall be allowed to take it upon itself to define for any
private business or private entity how it must segregate its restrooms, changing facilities, or
showers."

Kicking down trans people... again.

"Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between
one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations
in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin."

More homophobia.

"We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government
officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special
legal entitlements or creation of special status for LGBTQ+ behavior, regardless of state of origin. We
oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or
belief in traditional values."

Even more kicking down trans and gay people, HOW NICE. Oh and gotta say it again that it's okay to be homophobic. Let's repeat that last sentence"oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction"
So in other words if my faith said that gay people should be idk... the devil, and I say... idk. Kill them. I won't receive any criminal penalties if my religion says it was the right thing to do.

"We believe the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling."

Oh hey, kicking gay and trans people again! not like you already been doing this non stop.

So... Now that I went through all of this. This is a pretty obvious reason why I absolutely hate the Republican party.

Going to need greater context for some of those as you clearly have an axe to grind/agenda and world view all of your own and some of those have a basis in more sound policy if you were to divorce yourself from such things (hard as it may be). Haven't read any other replies yet.

On minimum wage. "The real minimum wage is zero" may not necessarily be completely correct but it is most of the way there -- if I am forced to extract 15 dollars an hour (plus insurance, due diligence and tax and whatnot that may go on top of that) I am going to need the best and the brightest. To that end if you are disabled, old, slow, with kids, a carer for someone with very limited hours... I will seek alternatives as best I can up to and including robots in current space year or doing without.

EPA and endangered species acts. Two different concepts but endangered species act is a fairly weak piece of legislation that causes all sorts of fun and games acting at state level in some case rather than the borders of the plant/animal/whatever population.

Drinking water I would write off as hyperbole on your part -- assuming they are at least going to vaguely take the lessons of Machiavelli to heart then 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food and society is only 3 meals away from revolution... oh dear.

Carbon taxes are for the most part a money laundering scheme from where I sit. I am not necessarily opposed to some carrot and stick but their efficacy as a general concept is quite questionable.

Gay marriage. I would generally oppose marriage as a legal concept and have it was whatever kooky ritual your religion cares to do with all the force that such a thing implies (may be considerable in some communities, some of the Islamic stuff in the UK being an interesting case study, but ultimately unenforceable by law if you decide to wander off). Given the falling off a cliff such a thing has done, though you would have to be incredibly foolish to watch everything since your grandparents get nailed for alimony and whatever else at a more than 50% basis (first marriage divorce rate is teetering on 50% with it only going up from there, to say nothing of who files and timelines thereof) with no signs of slowing to take that risk, then seems that is already being handled. Pending the glorious day when it is a thing of the past then as we are not ancient Rome and needing to create those citizens and keep the males vaguely contented then no reason then for the few legal benefits that such a thing might have then no reason to deny it. That said without context of the further quotes both parents in the household does produce the best outcomes for kids (single mothers and foster care tending to be the exact opposite) so promoting it as that initial snippet could be said to be (again context) could be a thing worth doing.

Taxpayer dollars to unions is anti union or anti state support thereof? I find the government can't compete with private enterprise ideas and results thereof quite curious for the US (filing taxes being among the most interesting -- I am self employed in the UK and while I keep my books current using basically a spreadsheet then it takes me a whole 20 minutes once a year).
That said most unions these days are useless and counterproductive, certainly anything vaguely to do with the national level bodies in the US. Maybe not quite on par with the mob days but hey. If you want to do a local union for you and yours, especially if you are not technically capable or otherwise skilled, then might be some merit there as you actually have your interests at heart (though funding of anything serious as far as legal and inspection, much like HR then health and safety is funded by the company with the company's pocket book in mind and thus if you are going to do something risky then better to have someone with a vested interest in your well being take a look, can be fun for obvious reasons).

I shall have to look into the efficacy of the Frank Dodd things but I am generally going with ineffective and watered down as most legislation is and probably only serves to throw roadblocks in front of the little guy wanting to spin up. Or if you prefer if housing is what 2008 was about in part (money printing also being a fun one) then the whole mortgage backed security and CDO markets that were pretty much fraudulent by the end started up again once the dust had settled in 2012 albeit under a different name, and is about to come due again. This time we also had a nice bit of money printing also happen so yeah.
Now if they were actually going to do something like tax during the boom times and release the boons during the bust cycles then I might actually be impressed but I am not going to hold my breath there.

I too would be wary of regulations on internet and internationally is a fun one as well as far as the US is concerned. Neither flavour of politico likely to get power in the US has me all that enthused and both would cripple it if given their free reign so pending some kind of "you are a common carrier, no preferential treatment/taxes, and definitely fuck off with that blocking of sites/countries we don't like" type deal then by all means be wary, hopefully we also get the content provider vs content creator line sorted out as well so Facebook, Google/Alphabet/Youtube et al don't dance between the two as it befits them (and will be curious to see how the meddling in private enterprise sentiments also play out there). I can ignore the hyperbole of national socialists and those scary paedophiles (the latter being illegal anyway) and have to wonder if I were to look out into the world if twatter, facebook, youtube et al are doing a good job of things... survey says no and putting a thumb on the scales gets interesting results people might not want.

Elected officials being recalled.
I am not sure where the contention comes in here. Now if abuses of such things surface to stuff the whatever with cronies then I might take issue but recall and other censure mechanisms seem like a good thing from where I sit in case of abuse of power (which is a relatively common experience if we look at history and the US as a whole -- percentage wise then governors getting impeached, recalled and such like is fairly high as these things go even if you ignore Michigan).
If there is an implementation error and yeah recall and emergency election (granted the US seems to be fond of timelines being adhered to, compared to UK where by elections seem to be every other week) would be a nice thing to see in preference of recall and replace with the backup or head of whatever.

The US is rather unique in not having an official language -- everywhere else in the world does and is rather stringent about it (indeed the English speaking world being probably the least stringent compared to Japan, France, Canada if we count Quebec, Germany, Russia, Korea, India, China... though I will give several of those are not necessarily places with the highest emphasis on human rights). Bit of a stretch to get to racism and not sure what problems it thinks it will solve (still going to have to find interpreters for courts, hospitals and probably want to provide all sorts of leaflets in whatever is out there). Two others in territories (presumably Spanish for Puerto Rico and such, and maybe French until the last few Cajuns die out) would rather seem to omit the Indians though which could be tricky.

Are ample laws not in place for hate crimes? I murder someone and that is a thing, I rob someone and that is a thing, I beat someone up and that is a thing, first amendment would generally protect speech (sadly not the case everywhere in the free world). Irrationality in a course of action would tend to also be a thing come sentencing though I don't know what goes for guidelines there and prosecution ones prior to that.
Employment and tenancy laws could be a fun one to consider under this and I don't know how that plays out.

So going for state level control of education? Looking around the US I don't know how much I would like the results but well within the "If you don't like it then do it yourself or leave" that would be in line with the general thought process and backed up by other aspects there.

Religious stuff in schools. I did find the prayer club stuff quite bizarre -- if you have a room that can be booked out then whatever. Bible as a founding document... interesting leap given half of it is copy-pasted from various enlightenment thinkers and UK/English common law. Teachers as preachers outside of those poor unfortunates that get sent to religious schools gets to be more tricky, especially as "I am here to teach you how to think, not what to think" is now an ancient and forgotten concept.

Which dovetails nicely into critical race theory is a stupid and itself racist and ahistorical view of things every time I have gone reading into it (rather than go into depth I think I will link https://www.lotuseaters.com/video-critical-race-theory-explained-30-06-21 as a reasonable approximation of where I sit). Banning it entirely while as pleasant as contemplating a banning of religion would however go against that free speech lark so play on in that marketplace of ideas. As a governing principle for education... fuck right off.

On global warming et al being able to be challenged. Sadly a lot of it does have the air of dogma about it these days with panic panic panic being another aspect. It would be terrifically difficult to dismiss it entirely but there are plenty of hazy edges to pick at. Whether kids might appreciate the nuance is a different matter entirely.

+1 to abstinence only being ineffective at best and idiotic at worst if taken as a population sample (the pill is very effective if clinically controlled, let people use it themselves and enough forget or otherwise take things that counteract it that the net efficacy is rather lower. Applying similar scientific standards to abstinence only and... yeah). The not funding a third party course is an interesting one.
Anti gay alphabet soup... much of identity as it would be phrased is not settled clinical science so I would not take that path if you are going to try attacking it. That said yeah I can sense the hand of the old school religious types having been taught how to phrase things by lawyers.
The genders as biological male and female is an interesting twist as well and counter to some of the linguistic fun others go in for (the distinction between chromosomes and what your head reckons it is works for me, the "no such thing as biological..." being rather silly).
The bake the cake/"wax my balls, bigot" thing is a fun one as far as laws and freedoms go without too many easy answers for optional things.

Don't normally see anti UN stuff make it this far. How interesting. The efficacy of the UN is rather dubious on many fronts (UN peacekeeping is a joke with its few successes being when people went off script) but outright withdrawing from it is an interesting play, I would have to wonder if that is one of those force a concession points. Wonder if it also speaks to a more isolationist streak bubbling up (historically we are due for another US isolationism period, helped along but what will probably be a nice depression for the next while with the only question being whether China, India or Russia will be ascendant during that though all of those are facing massive problems with hopes of a lot of those being on a knife edge).

Fluoride in water got this far... interesting. I am sure some would try to cloak it in choice, which is not an unreasonable course of action. I would too fear the net effects though, especially as toothpaste is not always containing it in the US.

I would be tempted to look how effective some of the US healthcare measures are as a concept, and also ponder the weird hybrid nature of public and private that helps remarkably few people in the end. If it is to further that.

As far as social security to all but those truly unable to work then that seems reasonable (pending qualifications for it, which I am sure will be on the harder side of things), though how many system surfers there are I don't know and would bet more towards it being a boogeyman to scare/enrage the would be voters with. It will also be an interesting question in a few more years when if you can't program a computer or use one to a serious degree (some ponder links between IQ and fitness for task, somewhat dubious for me but not as much as the idea of the blank slate) that you find yourself unemployable in the same way someone with Down's syndrome might be today when a few more robots get brought in.

Abortion not being healthcare is a bit hard line for me as well -- even if you are going to take the questionable step of banning elective ones then incest, rape and ectopic pregnancies (never mind even more fun ones like cancer and disease treatment and options therein).

The VA healthcare system is generally not held in high regard and has all sorts of trip ups and issues vis a vis percentage disability, injury in service vs not, prexisting before service (even if worsened by it) and more besides. You might be accused of seeking to find an issue here.

Pornography crisis. Somewhat of a twist I had not seen coming (though don't tend to keep a finger on the pulse there) and wondered if it was mostly going to be the Mormons that cared/tried it on as some kind of money shovelling tool. Your other stuff could well be trying to crowbar something in and not sure where sex comes into this one as it is pornography that is being discussed. That said if they omit the prevalence of fat bastards (most places everywhere seem to have something aimed at it) and instead tackle this then yeah that is dubious.
On the one hand I would happily put porn under free speech (call it art if you have to, barrier to such things being rather low) and go with look at what you want to look at. On the other there are some considerable downsides for a not insignificant portion of the population (levels of erectile dysfunction, relationship dysfunction, expected vs reality, body image issues*, it being used as a teaching tool**). That said once more the slimy hand of a religious weirdo being coached by a lawyer is felt though.
*time was a young girlie having read too many fashion magazines and coming up short to the airbrushed, well lit, professional makeup, tailored clothes sporting and starved winners of the genetic lottery would be told to go buy a dead tree porno (the mere act of having to go into a newsagents and get it also helping at some level) and read that as it was what the males were after/excited by, today even amateur porn might be tricky for that one. Gay males and body image issues is a whole other kettle of fish as well (fat straight guy might at least make some money and get a gold digger, fat gay guy might be the literal definition of involuntary celibate if what I have seen is anything to go by).

**made even more fun if you are going to dodge sex education as well. As a general rule learning sex from porn is a bit like learning computer hacking or gunplay from TV shows. Rule of cool being the order of the day compared to anything comfortable, practical, safe or enjoyable, plus you do tend to go in for the genetic freak shows much like any other acting or sports type gig.

The transexuals in the military thing is an interesting one. If the military is going to be social advancement method then exclusion to some extent could be a thing. On the other having to carry your hormone tablets (because logistics is a thing), the effects of said same on combat efficacy (if we are to believe MTF confers no advantage in sports then that is a disadvantage in combat where mixed units have been repeatedly tested and came up wanting) and never mind having to bugger off to dilate or whatever when you are supposed to be manning the walls is rather tricky when you a military force aiming to hurt the enemy where violence of action is your doctrine. People with far lesser issues are also excluded from military service on the basis of it reducing efficacy/combat effectiveness as well. The phrasing would also seem to reflect that (can you shoot your rifle, hump the weight in the best time and never leave a man behind whilst not needing any special considerations... don't care what your head reckons it is then), though that could be a more subtle hand of the lawyer at work (and indeed if I am assuming competent and Machiavellian, and I do in all cases even if it does conflict with the malice and stupidity phrase at times, then I would have to go there).
Also related at this point


Memorials is ever the debate. There is a difference between venerate and remember your history, tearing things down (especially when history is not necessarily black and white) is rather more dubious. I do also reserve quite some disdain for those that would take it upon themselves to destroy things.

The toilets and changing rooms being presumably left to private individuals. Bit more libertarian than some of the other proposals in this list (though again lawyer directing phrasing would be my bet).
While I don't necessarily imagine it will be the shining beacon for those more used to New York and California universities mindsets (and those builders that get to make them) there is very clear argument for freedom in this one, including your freedom not to grace the business with your presence if such a thing is a dealbreaker for you. While the dude in a dress next to my daughter people don't make much sense to me (never mind the merely self identify vs performative question) I am not sure I have a particularly well formed thought on this one.

I already said my bit on marriage above (stupid idea, don't do it, pending the day of its ridding as a government enforced contract then give it to the gays, if your religious institution cares to do government sanctioned types then you get to too, if your religious institution has it as a private internal ritual then carry on even if you get the religious tax exemption). That would seem to contradict it as the thematic basis. I am curious to see the basis for the law though as that will be interesting based on most readings I have seen thus far.
Similarly the bake the cake thing I covered briefly and don't have an easy answer. The killing thing is hyperbolic but I can see downsides, especially if it extends into irrelevant things to the transaction (decorate my cake is one thing vis a vis forcing me to act, sell me an existing one from your counter/we don't serve your kind quite another).

Some interesting phrasing on the promotion of heterosexual marriage. I see a pork barrel as things are made to promote it. That said it is not without underlying reason -- I already mentioned the less than stellar outcomes*** for single parent, which usually means single mother, households and dodging that by promoting other means (which for Americans seems to mean marriage) could be seen as a good thing, though I would still say you are a fool if you marry or get into a common law marriage.

***merely from an economic standpoint if the income is less and attention split by virtue of being said single parent then that alone, and that is before we ponder what roles each gender might play in the upbringing and what lacking one or the other for various stages might do in such things.

If I am take California and Texas as the extremes within the US then even ignoring self interest and pending financial woes (granted some might say the woes are caused by such policies, and they are not without a leg to stand on; there being some quite ridiculous taxes and requirements I would not adopt for myself if I were king, not least of all because much of them are sexist and racist -- keep your quotas and forced diversity hires as I will take the best for the job regardless of melanin and flavour of wobbly bits or indeed wobbly bits they care to fumble with) I think I would take Texas. All that said as probably evident above I am one of those filthy centrists it seems so would probably go for somewhere closer to that.

Further to that then as I am only reading what I assume are carefully selected excerpts then surprised not to see anything on vaccinations (not so many hippy earth mothers in Texas compared to California but enough of the religious weirdo and love my country hate my government components of that crowd that you still have numbers worth considering as a whole) and parental choice vis a vis transexual children (if they are going for the complete list its absence is noted -- some states allow your child to be removed if you refuse to go in for that, rather contrasting with other rights to choose medical treatment even at severe costs to the child**** but different debate there). Maybe it is a solved issue but if it is a going to be some kind of platform statement then eh.

****there being all sorts of religious, personal and cultural exemptions for things trivially fixed otherwise with stuff presumably metres away in the hospital there and then and plenty willing and capable of administering care.

Now the bets on whether responses to this are "tl;dr", ew you filthy anti American hippy or "ew you bigot" despite me not being anything the sort (at least as far as I understand it but those goalposts are ever shifting).

 

[Hanafuda]

Is this the liberal circlejerk thread?

I think they all are.

Re: the topic, easy solution. If you don't like what they say, don't vote for them. If they win anyway, well that's democracy for ya.

 

[Lacius]

If they win anyway, well that's democracy for ya.

Is it democracy when districts are so gerrymandered that the political party with fewer votes ends up winning the most seats?

 

[Xzi]

Not only will I donate, I'll physically help build the wall between Texas and the US if they actually go through with seceding from the union.

Of course they're all bark and no bite though, because that would also mean no Republican ever wins a presidential race again.

 

[Hanafuda]

Is it democracy when districts are so gerrymandered that the political party with fewer votes ends up winning the most seats?

Is it democracy when Democrats do the same thing in New York, Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico? There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Lacius]

Is it democracy when Democrats do the same thing in New York, Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico?

No, it isn't.

 

[m1x3rr]

Land of the unfree, basically.

 

[Costello]

mrdude has been suspended for 1 week for inappropriate behavior & insults despite being asked repeatedly to cool down

being a despicable human being is not against the rules per se, but if you are going to start being downright insulting to everybody here, might as well go cool off in a corner. If you do return you'd better change attitude, unless you want to be permanently banned.

 

[TraderPatTX]

I actually laughed out loud at your outrage. You are going to have a really tough rest of the year. I hope you will be able to cope.

 

[videogamefanatic]

I don't understand the carbon tax scam and how everyone falls into it. Clearly if there is any damage being done to the planet, it is mostly done by the ventures of the industrialists with their asphalt, concrete, factories, waste, automobiles, and wasteful lifestyle/culture that they've peddled to the world over the past century. And now the industrialists with their little Davos buddy clubs, get together and blame all the carbon on humans, animals, and their farts, then decide that they must tax the people for their destruction of the environment.

I would think that the solution would have been to put a chain on the industrialists a long time ago and continue riding horses, which happen to be a self driven, self reproducing, biodegradable, fertilizer producing, vehicle that runs off plant life, but no people are stupid and would rather have their wasteful toys than attempt to live in accord with nature.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A carbon cap and tax is literally taxing those industrialist corporations for producing, buying, or using carbon dioxide releasing fuels. It isn't a direct tax on normal taxpayers. And if it's done *right*, the taxes paid for such a program would at least, in part, go directly to taxpayers to ease the increase in gas prices (hell, make it progressive, redistribute it based on income so that the poorest can still afford their gas and then some), and other parts of tax would go to funding alternative energy developments and infrastructure (including electric car tax credits hopefully, which makes it easier for taxpayers to replace their fossil-fuel burning cars too).

Here's the thing: Fossil fuels are artificially *extremely cheap* because their environmental costs are externalized. Fossil fuel companies tend to not have to worry about the environmental damage that processing and burning their fuels cause, so alternatives didn't historically have any chance to even compete. That's managed to actually change somewhat as the cost of wind and solar has fallen so much, but the fight was unfair to begin with. A carbon tax makes it so that the cost of those fuels takes into account the previously externalized environmental costs, and those costs will be pretty high because we waited this long to do anything to fix the problem we've been inching our way into since industrialization started.

Seriously, we need to get off of fossil fuels, and air carbon capture (or at least, planting, lumbering, and replanting hella trees) is going to be necessary if we don't want miles upon miles of land going underwater at every coast (causing absurd amounts of property damage and displacement), summer temperatures getting progressively hotter, and more and more reefs and other underwater habitats to die off from heat and acidification. A carbon cap and tax is the *minimum* we need to be doing IMO. The transition needs to speed up sooner rather than later.

EDIT: Also, going back to horses aren't the answer. Nice thought, I guess?, but going backwards like that isn't going to happen.

 

[Iamapirate]

Tldr; Texas Republicans aren't Democrats so I don't like them

 

[TraderPatTX]

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A carbon cap and tax is literally taxing those industrialist corporations for producing, buying, or using carbon dioxide releasing fuels. It isn't a direct tax on normal taxpayers. And if it's done *right*, the taxes paid for such a program would at least, in part, go directly to taxpayers to ease the increase in gas prices (hell, make it progressive, redistribute it based on income so that the poorest can still afford their gas and then some), and other parts of tax would go to funding alternative energy developments and infrastructure (including electric car tax credits hopefully, which makes it easier for taxpayers to replace their fossil-fuel burning cars too).

Here's the thing: Fossil fuels are artificially *extremely cheap* because their environmental costs are externalized. Fossil fuel companies tend to not have to worry about the environmental damage that processing and burning their fuels cause, so alternatives didn't historically have any chance to even compete. That's managed to actually change somewhat as the cost of wind and solar has fallen so much, but the fight was unfair to begin with. A carbon tax makes it so that the cost of those fuels takes into account the previously externalized environmental costs, and those costs will be pretty high because we waited this long to do anything to fix the problem we've been inching our way into since industrialization started.

Seriously, we need to get off of fossil fuels, and air carbon capture (or at least, planting, lumbering, and replanting hella trees) is going to be necessary if we don't want miles upon miles of land going underwater at every coast (causing absurd amounts of property damage and displacement), summer temperatures getting progressively hotter, and more and more reefs and other underwater habitats to die off from heat and acidification. A carbon cap and tax is the *minimum* we need to be doing IMO. The transition needs to speed up sooner rather than later.

EDIT: Also, going back to horses aren't the answer. Nice thought, I guess?, but going backwards like that isn't going to happen.

Now name a tax that has ever been done right and explain why you would want the federal government to have even more power over us and drive the cost of everything even higher than what they are doing now.

Getting off of fossil fuels is a noble goal. We just need a technology that is reliable, safe, and cheap to make. Do you think it's weird that the people who talk about rising ocean levels and climate change the most have properties on the coast that they spent 10's of millions of dollars purchasing? It's almost like they don't believe their own bullshit but they expect us to believe it. I guess some people actually do believe it after all.

And here is your carbon capture system. They are called trees.

https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115

 

[BitMasterPlus]

being a despicable human being is not against the rules per se

This explains the attitude and actions of 70% of people in this site, users and staff alike, perfectly.

 

[SG854]

mrdude has been suspended for 1 week for inappropriate behavior & insults despite being asked repeatedly to cool down

being a despicable human being is not against the rules per se, but if you are going to start being downright insulting to everybody here, might as well go cool off in a corner. If you do return you'd better change attitude, unless you want to be permanently banned.

What about his wife mrsmaam?

 

[bodefuceta]

Yep, I'm all for paragraph 317 as well. Marriage should only be for men and women, as it has been for thousands of years and still is in most parts of the world. The gays can have a civil partnership or whatever, after all it's just a bit of paper isn't it.

Stop drinking the kool aid. Traditional marriage in official capacity in america died in the 1930s, traditional marriage means the wife belongs to the husband, whatever you call marriage now is just a modern invention, the government has been actively supressing the rights of husbands since, leaving only a shell of what marriage once was, an actively harmful one that's absolutely no surprise people are avoiding. Do not protect this shit, for God's sake.