Excuse the **** out of me for not catching the one time you're making a joke about the evil Republicans, since most of the time you (or somebody else on this board) is bashing them in earnest.
Then your sense of humor detector is on the fritz.
Or someone just claims he was joking after the fact. I'm curious, since you have a perfectly functioning humor detector, if you could tell me which of these is a joke and which isn't:
Edit: and by that, I don't mean this case specifically, but rather the fight for *** marriage in general throughout the country, state by state.
I think it will. I showed the aggregate polling
over the last 10-15 years in a previous thread and we've just hit parity for support versus opposition whereas you don't have to go far back to find 10 or 20 point spreads against it. It will take time for state legislatures to roll over enough to overturn laws or re-amend their constitutions and some states will of course hold out much longer than others (such as the N. Carolina vote). But the trend certainly seems to be in favor of SSM and I think eventually you'll even have GOP controlled legislatures allowing it.
One thing I didn't expect is that you're seeing a lot more acceptance
of SSM since Obama came out openly in favor of it. Assuming these new numbers are legitimate, that can have a real impact going forward as African-Americans were one of the bastions of support anti-SSM advocates depended on (again, see N. Carolina and California).
Sure seems to be serious when talking about polling data.
I would wager that a lot of people who vote Republican don't personally have an issue with SSM, and would answer either in favor of or not opposed to SSM when asked for a poll. The people they elect aren't going to pass any proposals putting an SSM initiative on the ballot, though.
That's because the people they elect go through a primary process that favors those who are against SSM because most Republicans (at least Republican primary voters) DO care. The fewer who care, the less often it'll matter in the primary process and the more people favorably inclined will take office.
Sure seems to be serious when speaking about legislatures opposing SSM.
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage
You're aware of how we determine who wins an election, right?
Sure seems to be serious when talking about people voting here too.
Heh... I actually "get" what he's trying to say but he's missing the point. The more marginalized the strident anti-SSM vote is, the less it'll matter. Eventually you'll have politicians who are pro-SSM or just don't care but who are better qualified than whatever homophobe is running on the anti-SSM ticket and they will win. Won't happen today or tomorrow but I'm sure that's the direction we're headed. How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.
Seems to be serious here also.
Again, does anyone actually think that over 50% of the voters in California just hate *** people?
To be fair, I'm sure a healthy percentage of them don't so much hate *** people as much as they just do whatever the GOP tells them to do and rationalize to themselves later
Ah... But this one is a joke, right? Please tell me you're kidding. If it's a joke, it's a pretty lame one. And what's with being dead serious when talking about polling numbers on *** marriage, but suddenly shifting to a joke when the issue of the people actually voting comes up? Isn't the latter more important? He seemed to be serious when talking about how people are elected, so why joke when someone talks about how people vote directly for issues on the ballot? Why is one important, but the other not?
Seems like he switched to joking when he realized that he didn't have an actual real response. Which is funny given how seriously he took the issue right up to that point.