all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 109 points 3 days ago (8 children)

They'll spend over $200 million to elect a criminal.

Republicans love them some crime.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    Even better, it looks like they're going to spend over $200 million to almost elect a criminal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    I love it when they spend a literal fortune, and lose anyway.

    All those billionaires are just throwing their money away, money that should have gone into the paychecks of their employees. That's why we've got to take it away from them, and allocate it responsibly.

  • source
  • [–] 63 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (14 children)

    While I might not agree with Talarico's religious views, he's the only Christian politician I've ever seen that actually acts in a manner consistent with them.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • Yeah, anyone who has their religious orientation in their bio gets an immediate cautious approach from me. It's rare that I meet someone who has a perspective like that and they've interpreted their psychological drug of choice as an imperative to actually be nice to everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Well they aren't voting on him to be Pope

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

    In an ideal society, democratic socialists would be able to win across the country. Given how much of the South is indoctrinated into basing the laws of modern society around a misguided interpretation of a two-thousand year-old book, finding Christian candidates who don't interpret the Bible through a Christian nationalist mindset is probably the most effective way to get such voters to support moderate Democrat-aligned policies, let alone progressive ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    Man you have a real low bar for idealism. We could be.. You know.. Seizing the means of production and building a stateless and classes worker's utopia. Fully automated luxury gay space communism. Use your imagination my dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (8 children)

    While I might not agree with Talarico's religious views

    Do you disagree or are you saying you don’t share them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

    I just don't share them. My point was more to highlight the rarity of Talarico in blending his Christian faith with his politics in a manner that results in a liberal rather than Christian nationalist platform.

    Mainline denominations are the most liberal, and are thus the most likely source for Christians running as Democrats. Talarico is a Presbyterian, while Hamilton in Kansas is a Methodist; both denominations are now LGBTQ-affirming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    Thanks for clarifying! I’m with you in that I don’t share Talarico’s religious views but I asked because I wouldn’t say I don’t agree either.

    I feel like he applies the teachings he’s learned from his faith without the evangelizing. I don’t get there’s a sense he’s trying to get people to jump into his religion but more he’s using his faith to try and communicate through action how people can be more caring and decent to one another.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (4 children)

    Hamilton in Kansas is a Methodist; both denominations are now LGBTQ-affirming.

    Well it's a little more complicated than that when it comes to Methodists I think as they recently had a schism over this. So it depends on which side he falls on.

    More info:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Methodism

    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/04/793614135/united-methodist-church-announces-proposal-to-split-over-gay-marriage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

    Hamilton remains the pastor for the largest UMC church (rather than Global Methodist) in the U.S.; I expect that he would have left the UMC during the schism if he were against it. This article by him seems to reflect a pro-LGBTQ position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

    Ok. Good for him then I guess.

    I mean it doesn't erase an entire holy book full of problematic insanity, but sure why not.

    Edit: huh... Interesting to write an entire article about how Christians got the Bible wrong when it comes to LGBTQ+ without once mentioning Leviticus at all, let alone Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13.

    Yeah man, I guess if you just ignore the parts that are pretty explicitly anti-homosexual, then yeah I guess the book isn't anti-homosexual. Kind of a tautology, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 child)

    Ultimately, it comes down to which Christians are willing to accept that the Bible is a product of the culture of its time and which view it as infallible. Voters in the latter category—not an insignificant number in the Bible Belt—are far harder for the average Democrat to reach; the best chance of doing so is with candidates like Talarico, to whom they can perhaps relate better than a candidate like AOC.

    It's not ideal, but as long as Christianity continues to have the influence that it does in the U.S., it's better if people in the Bible Belt were led by progressive Christians like Talarico than evangelical Christians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago*

    Ultimately, it comes down to which Christians are willing to accept that the Bible is a product of the culture of its time

    A major aspect of Jesus and his teachings were very very anti-establishment. Like it was the entire point. It's why they killed him. Talking shit about slavery would 100% have fit his alleged M.O. (who knows, maybe he did and the authors, translators, and editors of the Bible chose to remove it. This is assuming he existed in the first place but that's a separate discussion)

    It's just so disappointing to see so many people accept this about their religion. We need to do better.

    Edit: I forgot we were talking about LGBTQ, not slavery. I got my problematic Christian beliefs mixed up when replying. My bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    I don't share them, and have an automatic mistrust of anything "Christian" anymore. If I lived in Texas, I'd vote for Talarico as the lesser of two evils, but I'd be holding my nose to do it, just like I did with Hilary Clinton.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 3 days ago

    He's a pedophile in Red Texas, I figured that'd be enough for the Rapeublicans

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 3 days ago

    Eat shit fucker.

  • source