5 ms·

I tend to agree with him. Look at what happens whenever we put things to a popular vote in this country. Even in places that re known as being very liberal, lik

I tend to agree with him. Look at what happens whenever we put things to a popular vote in this country. Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?

honestoHeminway 9y ago
Because the other half of the species is frankly in constant denial of human nature? This is how we kept the tribe working before the modern state. A instinct in hetero man- telling them to hate on homosexuals. A instinct in hetero woman to test for this behaviour and use it, by having a drug addicted hetero male with which to threaten homo-sexual men into forming a contract-upholding-support group. Thus religion was born. To declare this phobia synthetic is heresy.
mrkrabo 9y ago
And what makes you think you are universally and undeniably right if you support homosexuality and marijuana?
- islanderfun 9y ago
  Don't believe it has to do with being "universally and undeniably right" but rather freedom to have gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Nothing to be "correct" about.
  - mrkrabo 9y ago
    Where do we draw the line? If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? If marijuana, why not cocaine?
    - untog 9y ago
      > If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make. > If marijuana, why not cocaine? Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.
somedangedname 9y ago
I think that someone who thinks democracy cramps his style has no business advising the president.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  The president isn't elected via democracy. It seems like congresspeople should be most concerned with democracy.
  - somedangedname 9y ago
    The electoral college is weighted representative democracy as opposed to a direct vote. It's clumsy but still reflects the popular vote.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      It's actually unequally-weighted doubly indirect representation with structural incentives (but no guarantee) for the representatives actually tasked with choosing the voting representatives to both delegated that task to the citizenry and a separate set of incentives and abide by the results and a separate set of incentives (and, again, no guarantee) for the set of voting representatives to vote in accordance with the preferences expressed by the voters by whom they were elected. And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.
      - somedangedname 9y ago
        Yah, so like I said it's clumsy.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      The most recent presidential election suggests otherwise.
bsder 9y ago
> Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley) Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so. Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).

honestoHeminway 9y ago

Because the other half of the species is frankly in constant denial of human nature? This is how we kept the tribe working before the modern state. A instinct in hetero man- telling them to hate on homosexuals. A instinct in hetero woman to test for this behaviour and use it, by having a drug addicted hetero male with which to threaten homo-sexual men into forming a contract-upholding-support group. Thus religion was born. To declare this phobia synthetic is heresy.

mrkrabo 9y ago

And what makes you think you are universally and undeniably right if you support homosexuality and marijuana?

islanderfun 9y ago
Don't believe it has to do with being "universally and undeniably right" but rather freedom to have gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Nothing to be "correct" about.
- mrkrabo 9y ago
  Where do we draw the line? If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? If marijuana, why not cocaine?
  - untog 9y ago
    > If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make. > If marijuana, why not cocaine? Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.

somedangedname 9y ago

I think that someone who thinks democracy cramps his style has no business advising the president.

oh_sigh 9y ago
The president isn't elected via democracy. It seems like congresspeople should be most concerned with democracy.
- somedangedname 9y ago
  The electoral college is weighted representative democracy as opposed to a direct vote. It's clumsy but still reflects the popular vote.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    It's actually unequally-weighted doubly indirect representation with structural incentives (but no guarantee) for the representatives actually tasked with choosing the voting representatives to both delegated that task to the citizenry and a separate set of incentives and abide by the results and a separate set of incentives (and, again, no guarantee) for the set of voting representatives to vote in accordance with the preferences expressed by the voters by whom they were elected. And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.
    - somedangedname 9y ago
      Yah, so like I said it's clumsy.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    The most recent presidential election suggests otherwise.

bsder 9y ago

> Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley) Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so. Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).