You really gonna make me post the video again huh?
From what I gather their have values more closely aligned with the republican party positions on stuff.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
From what I gather their have values more closely aligned with the republican party positions on stuff.
Yes, part of it however is based on some level of truth behind the claims. It's a cartoon that very much was when it started out a fairly cutting satirical take upon US politics.
So which is more of a fantasy world idea; that the video and said cartoon are based on truth and there are gay republicans who are gay because of certain values they see the republican party as aligning with; or that there are no gay republicans and in reality all gay people are a monoculture?
I don't expect a response but I would suggest you maybe take a moment of introspection as to why you're seemingly so tetchy just because I posted a link to a cartoon show that suggested gay people are something other than a monoculture.....
Apologies for the long delay; my power supply got fried and I had to replace it.
This is all ignoring the fact that the US had all the ventilators it needed, stockpiled in the country. It even had a goddamn surplus. It did not need any from the UK by any measure.
Oh wait... isn't that exactly what happened in the US? If every state had merely ordered the ventilators they needed, at the same price per unit, there would not have been a shortage in any state. But they left it up to competing private interests. Cue pointless shortages and death, while ventilators sit unused.
Yes, I'm sure those <15,000 at approx. market value had an enormous impact, and that the ~100,000 or so at a far higher price had no discernible effect.
This is all ignoring the fact that the US had all the ventilators it needed, stockpiled in the country. It even had a goddamn surplus. It did not need any from the UK by any measure.
*If you arbitrarily exclude essential parts of the supply chain from consideration, that is.
I'm sure competing private interests have never transformed something that could be relatively simple into an exercise in price-gouging and exploitation.
Oh wait... isn't that exactly what happened in the US? If every state had merely ordered the ventilators they needed, at the same price per unit, there would not have been a shortage in any state. But they left it up to competing private interests. Cue pointless shortages and death, while ventilators sit unused.
You're blaming the US's inflated ventilator price on a minuscule UK order, when all the ventilators the US needed (and more) already existed within the US. You've opined that purchase and transportation is not an important part of the supply chain. I don't really think you have the standing to say someone doesn't know how the issues work.
Need and demand are two different things, the UK clearly had enough ventilators on it's own to fulfill it's need, but it still demanded more and it added to the strain in the global market. It literally doesn't matter that it's only a small part, nobody in particular made a big dent in the shortage, it's a problem made up of many many small parts. If we were to look state by state, I'm willing to bet no single state bought nearly as many ventilators as the UK, but you're putting the blame entirely on them and washing your hands of how it got to that point in the first place. If the US had jumped on ventilator buying before the UK, then the UK would be the ones overpaying for too few ventilators.
That's what you've been doing this whole time, talking about a supply chain as if it's encapsulated entirely within a single country.
Luckily this conversation is still about government ordering, just whether you leave it to an unelected bureaucrat or not.
I'm blaming it on a worldwide run on ventilators, which the UK was absolutely part of, but you don't read. And I have said transportation is important, I've also said that governments don't handle transportation so bringing it up as something the government does is really really stupid.
You however, do your normal thing where your argument changes over time, but you act like it was that way at the start.
...If we're comparing the impact of the UK's order with the impact of the inter-state bidding war, which involved all 50 states, what relevance would it have to say that no single state ordered as many as the UK? A single state does not constitute a bidding war. But I digress. The main question I'd like you to answer... is how would an increased demand on the global market prevent the US from utilising the more-than-adequate supply of ventilators the US already had?
No, I've been talking about a supply chain as if it involves steps both overseas and within the country, which it obviously does. And mismanagement on either side can lead to acute shortage. You, on the other hand, have been arguing that any steps of the supply chain that take place within the country itself are inconsequential.
Except you were defending every hospital ordering their own in a free-for-all, a few pages ago. You've been repeatedly arguing against state involvement.
That's just it: you're blaming a worldwide run on ventilators for the US's inability to mobilise ventilators it already had and did not need to import. The global market is not just some big massive pot with all the ventilators in it, with every demand applying to the same pile. They were literally not in competition for the ventilators the UK was importing. Because they already had the ones they had in the country, had no need to import by that time, and the ones they had were not up for export.
And yes, your failure to recognise the government's involvement in tendering government contracts has already been noted.
No, we had to bid against you too. And France, and Italy, and Spain, and Germany, etc.
For the same reason the UK bought more ventilators than it needed, a fear that it wouldn't be enough later.
You literally haven't, because if you did you would recognize that over 75% of any supply chain is in private industry since we live in a liberal society. So you wouldn't have brought up supply chains at all in the face of government, you'd only talk about one thing.
But then we'd have to come back to your asinine position that only elected officials can successfully order insulin.
I wasn't defending so much as stating that it happens because you said it literally could not work.
That is in fact literally how it is outside of countries with trade embargos and some influence games (like the divide between countries that use Sinovac and countries that use western vaccines). Yes, unless a company in particular is actively choosing not to engage with a country or countries, their product is available to anyone who's willing to buy, which will be global. I can't believe I have to explain this.
They wouldn't even have to be directly competing with the US, if the UK is buying up ventilators that could have been sold elsewhere if they hadn't (which they did), then there are people who are competing with the UK over them. If they lose to the UK, they have to get their ventilators from somewhere else, which could conflict with the US. That's how shortages work. I can't believe I have to explain this.
Yes, I'm not willing to say the government does more than send money. If something isn't nationalized, they're just sending money to a private interest in the hopes that their contract is fulfilled.
No, I can't claim to be a heterosexual non Republican (I'm not Democrat) according to various group's pushes. I can't even claim my citizenship, so again, cry me a fucking river over labels slapped on you.
Lawrence vs Texas.
The SCOTUS case that finally legalized homosexuality in the United States.
I'll give you one guess which party's justice's voted AGAINST making homosexuality legal. One guess.
No me crying a river just pointing out the stupidity of all of it
The democrat one?
Some interesting stats on gay republicans for anyone wondering why the hell there are (openly) gay conservatists.
Differences Between LGB Democrats and Republicans in Identity and Community Connectedness
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
So TLDR, the Republican LBG peeps are the ones that don't want to be that waySome interesting stats on gay republicans for anyone wondering why the hell there are (openly) gay conservatists.
Differences Between LGB Democrats and Republicans in Identity and Community Connectedness
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
5 vs 3 decision. O Connor (D) concurrence. All 3 Republican justices voted against it.
Now go ahead, make the case about Republicans aligning more with gay values when they don't even think homosexuality should be legal under the law?
I said values not gay values. It's quite possibly something about how core to their identity being gay is vs if they see it just as that's who they sleep with.
Tell me, what sort of braindead dip knowingly votes to have themselves be thrown in prison and registered as a sex offender? Maybe you know some, I don't.
Oh, and by the way, despite that SCOTUS decision Eleven states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Mass, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Three states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas, Kentucky, and surprise surprise Texas.
Not a monoculture. You see, people belong to multiple demographics and according to certain folks being a member of a given demographic means you must have certain specific social and political beliefs. But that demographic isn't a monoculture because one belongs to multiple demographics - for example there are white gays (who believe white things and gay things) and black gays (who believe black things and gay things). This is also why they desperately hate people who have the "wrong" beliefs for their demographics, sometimes going so far as to say they no longer count as a member of their demographics (usually these are conservatives or farther right and belong to one or more demographics that are assigned as being opposed to that political orientation).
Interesting if weird side note: Bestiality (at least of animals that will not be physically harmed by the act) is legal in WV because of LGBTQ+ activism. See, our old law against homosexuality was one of those "crimes against nature"-type laws that lumped several "deviant" sexual practices together and made them all illegal, and LGBTQ+ activism was responsible for having that law repealed (what with homosexuality having been on the list), but we haven't re-criminalized bestiality since. It usually gets sponsored and then ignored because there are usually more important issues to deal with (and ones less likely to cause unwanted sorts of media attention) during the legislative term than people wanting to screw animals. It's just not a priority and won't be until it causes some kind of major negative media attention to force their hand.
One funny quirk of the anti woke crowd had reared its ugly head again. A lot of the time the anti woke crowd gets sincerely convinced that there's some sort of press allegiance that's out to get their preferred media. This despite there being nothing that suggests this.
Presently the algorithm suggested me some right wing channels that claim the media has it out for Ghost Busters Afterlife because they're still grumpy its not Ghostbusters 2016, or that the media wants to punish Afterlife for ''giving the fans what they want''. Meanwhile the reviews of Afterlife seem to consider it adequate enough. 6-7 out of 10 seems the usual score.
And this is in fact really common. You had a bunch of right wingers convinced that the press was out to get Ghost of Tsushima to help prop up TLOU2 despite games media universally showering the game with praise. You had the alt right celebrate Joker and gloat that its success made the press ''mad''. With Cyberpunk too you had the narrative that the press had it out for that game despite it turning out that they weren't nearly critical enough and that they had signed embargoes forbidding them from being too hard on the game.
This is perhaps connected by their need to artificially create rivalries between ''woke games'' and ''the true games for true gamers''. They tried to insist that Ghost of Tsushima and TLOU2 were engaged in a battle for the soul of the medium and if they want to be the underdog it makes sense that they start imagining the press hates Ghost for not being woke....despite that game being far more woke than TLOU2 ever was. They're a really weird bunch.
Presently the algorithm suggested me some right wing channels that claim the media has it out for Ghost Busters Afterlife because they're still grumpy its not Ghostbusters 2016, or that the media wants to punish Afterlife for ''giving the fans what they want''. Meanwhile the reviews of Afterlife seem to consider it adequate enough. 6-7 out of 10 seems the usual score.
And this is in fact really common. You had a bunch of right wingers convinced that the press was out to get Ghost of Tsushima to help prop up TLOU2 despite games media universally showering the game with praise. You had the alt right celebrate Joker and gloat that its success made the press ''mad''. With Cyberpunk too you had the narrative that the press had it out for that game despite it turning out that they weren't nearly critical enough and that they had signed embargoes forbidding them from being too hard on the game.
This is perhaps connected by their need to artificially create rivalries between ''woke games'' and ''the true games for true gamers''. They tried to insist that Ghost of Tsushima and TLOU2 were engaged in a battle for the soul of the medium and if they want to be the underdog it makes sense that they start imagining the press hates Ghost for not being woke....despite that game being far more woke than TLOU2 ever was. They're a really weird bunch.
It's because they expect the press to be cheerleaders for the things they like and attack dogs going after everything else. After all, they're the only people who matter!