904
Trump exempts himself from ethics pledge as watchdogs sound alarms
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
904 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2249 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gay marriage was legalized under a majority conservative court system way back in 2003. When it went to a poplar vote in the bright blue State of California in 2008, Prop 8's plan to kill it passed by a healthy margin
This was the same year Obama was tiptoeing around full legalization of gay marriage for fear of pissing off too many swing voters in the Midwest.
Gay marriage wasn't fully legalized into 2015, again by the conservative courts. Efforts to legislate civil rights for LGBT people have largely failed even when the Pres and Leg were fully in Dem control.
Again, under a Liberal government. And I keep saying over and over -- I know they phone it in and constantly give bigot 'swing voters' things they want. I've never said anything against that. It had a 60% approval by the public in 2015 when it was fully legalized. So again, for like the fifth goddamn time -- Liberal governments can be forced to do these things by popular will. Conservatives won't (I'm sure there's like two examples someone will bring up, again, exception proves the rule.)
To sum: Liberals have to be forced to allow LGBT rights by popular opinion. Conservatives do this.
The Republicans controlled every branch of government in 2003, as well as a majority of state legislatures and governorships.
What broke for gay marriage in 2003 was a libertarian strain of conservatism defecting from the mainstream. Liberals accepted the change with the same passivity as they accepted the status quo.
Again by a majority conservative court. The Obama legislature dragged its heels.
They can be forced to do things by powerful socio-economic interests. In this case, a big chunk of the legal community broke for gay marriage and Obama didn't try to get in the way.
But they didn't do anything. They just let the change happen.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/3758652-here-are-the-gop-senators-who-voted-against-the-same-sex-marriage-bill/
https://newrepublic.com/post/169392/full-list-republicans-vote-against-same-sex-marriage
https://www.cpr.org/2020/02/14/why-4-colorado-republicans-tried-and-failed-to-ban-gay-marriage-in-2020/
and here's some anti LGBT-youth stuff https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb20-1144
You'll notice that in each and every case, the anti LGBT stuff is all Conservative, because Conservatives have that 'call to the past' or whatever; where 'the way things were' in the past is always better, and in the past women didn't have rights, LGBT people couldn't marry, etc.
Liberals don't actively fight against rights unless it's an overall popular voter opinion. Conservatives do regardless.
I say this as someone who's about as far left as one can go. I think you're A. grossly underestimating how useful 'letting change happen' is when it comes to popular opinion on rights, and grossly underestimating how much damage Conservatives clawing and gnashing at allowing rights for more people is.