John Fugelsang tweet:

[tblue37]

Link to tweet

Text

Rob Portman wrote DOMA and was a vicious homophobe - but renounced it all when his son came out as gay.

Which sorta makes me wish his son would come out as poor.

Or honest.

[blueinredohio]

1. Rob Portman is a two faced asswipe.

Its okay if its me or mine otherwise piss on you because I've got mine. He's afraid of his own shadow so he's not going to disagree with anything republicans say or do.

[KS Toronado]

2. What's a DOMA?

[tblue37]

3. Defense of Marriage Act.

[edhopper]

4. Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a law that, among other things, prohibited married same-sex couples from collecting federal benefits. It was overruled on June 26, 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

[czarjak]

5. My Trumpbilly neighbor said at the time...

“That Supreme Court decision is going back to the States for review”, not fully understanding exactly how things work. Typical republican.

[IronLionZion]

8. Spreading falsehoods is standard GOP strategy

since their voters aren't inquisitive enough to find out how it actually works.

[Ray Bruns]

6. Typical republican. If affects me it is a problem.

If it doesn't affect me, it's not.

[lindysalsagal]

7. Gender issues in families are also typical for people leaving extremist religions.

Cults pay off for people until they don't fit the pre-requisites: white, straight, christian, gunz.

[ThatJustHappened]

9. LGBT Identification

LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx


Which means about 1 in 20 Repukes in Congress are LGBT
Which means about 1 or 2 in the Senate
And about 10 in the House
None of whom are out


As of November 2020, there are 10 openly LGBTQ members of the 117th Congress, all of whom are Democrats. So for DEMs the math adds up. But for GOPs it does not. Which is always true of GOP math regardless of the issue. Since MAGAts can't do math and science. For more information, see Climate Change denial, Holocaust denial, Evolution denial, CoVid denial, Mask denial, Tax Cuts for the Rich, Trickle Down Economics, and GOP Deficit Spending.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_members_of_the_United_States_Congress#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20list%20of,all%20of%20whom%20are%20Democrats.

[qazplm135]

12. maybe

then again, it's not a random sample size. It's to a degree self-selected. So it may not be in the same proportions as the country as a whole.

[ThatJustHappened]

14. But if you then

take a random sample:

of DEMs in Congress the numbers would be correct, ~ 5%

of GOPs in Congress the number would be 0, which cannot be correct


which would tend to support the hypothesis that the two bodies are, in fact, representative random samples ... whether GOPs, or their constituents, "self-select" GOPs in Congress or not


and that DEMs are therefore being honest

and GOPs are not

which, after all, is almost always the case

[qazplm135]

15. no because the sample itself isn't random

for a random sample to work, the group you are selecting can't be non-random.

The entire population of the US is, for all intents and purposes, random.
The entire population of the House or Senate are not random.
They are a self-selected group of people of certain ages, income levels, and beliefs.

I'd wager that being gay is less likely to make you a Republican for one. Whether out or not.
It would make you even less likely to run for office, given the fear that it would get out and you'd be defeated or embarrassed.

So again, the numbers for a random number of Americans might be 5 percent, but that says nothing about what the sample is in the House or Senate among either Dems or Republicans.

[ThatJustHappened]

16. Then how do you

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2021, 05:12 PM - Edit history (2)

account for the fact that the DEM numbers are spot on, ~ 5%

while the GOP numbers are far from it? as far as possible, in fact.


Are you saying that the DEMs in Congress are a random sample but the GOPs in Congress are not?


It would seem that either they both must be representative random samples or both must be so-called "self-selected"

[qazplm135]

18. because

Dems don't care about sexual orientation and thus it's not a factor in the "selection" process like it is for Reps.
Or it could be that Dems are more likely to be younger as I believe the numbers skew lower for Dems than Reps in Congress.
It could also simply be coincidence.

Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot go from well the Dems correlate so the Reps must too. Neither set is "random." That one happens to "match" does not mean that the other does too.

Is it possible there are "secret" LGBTQ people on that side? Sure. In fact, it's probably a guarantee that there is.
Must that equate to the general population numbers? No, not at all. Could be less, could be more. (strongly would guess it's less).

Look at it from another example...how representative are Republicans v the country as a whole on race? Gender? Age? Not very representative right? Why would that be different for sexual orientation?

[Martin68]

19. Gazpim is correct, and the point he makes is an excellent one. When we're dealing with a

self-selected sample (all Republicans are self-selected conservatives), you are not dealing with a random sample. That said, there could be even more closet LGBTQ among Republican politicians than predicted by the national trend. There just isn't any scientific evidence either way that we can rely on.

[OldBaldy1701E]

20. Well

According to the statistics I saw a while back, there were about three times as many scandals of a sexual nature for rethugs as Dems. When you look at same-sex scandals... well, that number is pretty much all rethugs. Probably because of their inherent dishonesty in everything. So, I understand that it was a 'self-selected' sample, but there is evidence that there are probably many more closeted rethugs than the ones we know about.

(I do not have that link handy, but if someone wishes, I will see if I can find it. If I am remembering this wrong, I will certainly admit that and correct the numbers.)

[Martin68]

24. Given the amount of statistical information we see related to everything under the sun, it would

make sense to teach every high school student to have a basic understanding of how to analyze statistics, how to gauge their reliability, and how to recognize the most common ways statistic can be presented in a misleading way to influence the public. Every voting citizen needs to have a basic understanding of these concepts to understand what each party is basing their policies on. The Trumpist Republican Party no longer bases their policies on fact-based information, but they do manipulate statistics to try justify their policies. The gun debate is a perfect example of both sides using statistics to support opposite views.

[Grokenstein]

10. Rob: "Hey now--'honest'? Let's not get crazy, here."

"A man can only change his tune so much! Besides, most of my fellow Republicans are in the closet so it was relatively safe to go pro-gay. If I go 'honest' they'll tear me to shreds."

[LymphocyteLover]

11. according to one reply to Fugelsang, Portman is still a homophobe

Surprise!

[bringthePaine]

13. yeah, apparently "decent" is too much to ask...

[BobTheSubgenius]

17. Another beauty from John Fugelsang.

The world needs a lot more from him, and a LOT more of him.

[calimary]

21. OUCH!

[Oldem]

22. If his son had come out as honest,

Portman might have disowned him. "I don't know you anymore!"