Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 7/9/2025 at 12:44 PM, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I had no idea Brisket looked Jewish.

Not that there is anything wrong with looking Jewish.

Like a Jewish Al Gore.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
On 7/8/2025 at 1:38 PM, Pancho said:

Sounds like Talarico is going on Rogan 

Good for him. I was worried he was going to try to a jump to a higher office too soon, but with the attention he got this session I think it's time for him to take a shot. I just don't know where. Would be fun to watch him scold Danny Goeb like a school teacher with scripture and a preacher's cadence, but I don't know if that might be biting off too much. Is Lloyd Doggett planning to die in office? He's 78, would be 80 at his next swearing in. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
I'm worried Talarico is not mean enough. Good orators aren't gonna get the job done.

Correct. He appeals to people with intelligence and human decency.
In other words, the most irrelevant constituency of the current era. He might as well appeal to left-handed Slovenian pearl merchants.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

I'm about 20 minutes into the Rogan/Talarico interview.  Impossible not to like Talarico.

Question:  I'm also about 20 minutes into the first Rogan interview I've ever listened to, and I have to admit that while he doesn't commit any cardinal errors, I'm pretty much surprised by  his interviewing technique.  I was expecting something in between a Marc Maron let's be buddies and a Peter Attia I'm smarter than you approach.   He's kind of sounds like a UNT radio and television communications intern.

What is the superpower that got him to having the biggest podcast that anyone's every heard of?

Posted
1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I'm about 20 minutes into the Rogan/Talarico interview.  Impossible not to like Talarico.

Question:  I'm also about 20 minutes into the first Rogan interview I've ever listened to, and I have to admit that while he doesn't commit any cardinal errors, I'm pretty much surprised by  his interviewing technique.  I was expecting something in between a Marc Maron let's be buddies and a Peter Attia I'm smarter than you approach.   He's kind of sounds like a UNT radio and television communications intern.

What is the superpower that got him to having the biggest podcast that anyone's every heard of?

His podcast was a combination of mma discussion, comedians, and interesting experts interspersed with absurd conspiracy theorists. It was at times pretty entertaining. 

His opinions on pretty much everything except weed and standup comedy seem to be extremely malleable. He takes on the opinions of his guests. Early in the 2016 Dem primary he was an Andrew yang supporter and then Bernie. How he went from that to endorsing Trump is pretty crazy.

Something related that I’ve spent some time thinking about is: how did the young male YouTube space become so right leaning in the run up to the 2024 election. 

I saw so many previously apolitical channels, across a wide spectrum, start espousing right wing talking points. And I found myself wondering what caused that shift and how much did it influence the election. Were they captured by the right wing propaganda machine? Did they sense that was what their audience wanted to hear? Was it a collective group think? Did it stem from a collective rejection of Covid policies they saw as government control? Were they all already right leaning and now just talking about it because it was an election cycle? Was it just YouTube’s algorithm feeding me right leaning political content?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, heso said:

His podcast was a combination of mma discussion, comedians, and interesting experts interspersed with absurd conspiracy theorists. It was at times pretty entertaining. 

His opinions on pretty much everything except weed and standup comedy seem to be extremely malleable. He takes on the opinions of his guests. Early in the 2016 Dem primary he was an Andrew yang supporter and then Bernie. How he went from that to endorsing Trump is pretty crazy.

Something related that I’ve spent some time thinking about is: how did the young male YouTube space become so right leaning in the run up to the 2024 election. 

I saw so many previously apolitical channels, across a wide spectrum, start espousing right wing talking points. And I found myself wondering what caused that shift and how much did it influence the election. Were they captured by the right wing propaganda machine? Did they sense that was what their audience wanted to hear? Was it a collective group think? Did it stem from a collective rejection of Covid policies they saw as government control? Were they all already right leaning and now just talking about it because it was an election cycle? Was it just YouTube’s algorithm feeding me right leaning political content?

 

Those are all interesting questions, and I think you're right to consider them. Also, remember that a lot of those folks on YouTube are basically whores for attention and only making fractions of a penny per view, so for most, it's probably not a super lucrative gig. One thing we do know, for sure, is that the Kremlin paid some influencers.

Now, I'm not saying that Russia paid others, but we kind of have to assume that it's not out of the question. Nor is it unthinkable that other countries or organizations (PACs, rich fuckers...dark money in general) might have been doing the same thing, and, in general, we know conservatives have been targeting ALL of social media since the 2016 election, at least (Cambridge Analytica's Facebook stuff).

I guess what I'm saying is that the seemingly organic turn toward the dark side by young influencers might not have so organic after all. Or, on the other hand, maybe they all went crazy during Covid. Tough to say.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

Those are all interesting questions, and I think you're right to consider them. Also, remember that a lot of those folks on YouTube are basically whores for attention and only making fractions of a penny per view, so for most, it's probably not a super lucrative gig. One thing we do know, for sure, is that the Kremlin paid some influencers.

Now, I'm not saying that Russia paid others, but we kind of have to assume that it's not out of the question. Nor is it unthinkable that other countries or organizations (PACs, rich fuckers...dark money in general) might have been doing the same thing, and, in general, we know conservatives have been targeting ALL of social media since the 2016 election, at least (Cambridge Analytica's Facebook stuff).

I guess what I'm saying is that the seemingly organic turn toward the dark side by young influencers might not have so organic after all. Or, on the other hand, maybe they all went crazy during Covid. Tough to say.

 


I meant to add “were they bought by the right wing and/or right wing friendly propagandists?” and then forgot it. 

I expect it’s probably a combination of all of them. 

It was really bizarre. It started out as one that stuck out as “oh, I didn’t see him as having those views”. And then it kept happening to a point that there was obviously some level of coordination, be it algorithmic or on the content generation. 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Or, on the other hand, maybe they all went crazy during Covid. Tough to say.

I really think this is being discounted. I blame the overall breakdown of humanity and the understanding that we have set up a society that relies upon the cooperation of individuals and communities. I legitimately think this is where people fail. Selfishness. And I am not immune, but I think Trump supporters, especially young ones, are completely broken in this sense. They have never learned that we do better as a species when we work together. It has always been 1x1 for them. 
 

So when Covid occurred and they were asked to just hang out for a few months so we could take care of the greater good?  Ho boy, that brought out the insanity. 

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
51 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ho boy, that brought out the insanity

To your point, we’ve witnessed a 50 year run of culture and technology progress one might describe as “anti-social”.

I like the blame social media for a lot of today’s problems, but the patient was already on life support. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Thanks for the insight on Rogan.  At 20 minutes, he hadn't even woken up, but at the half hour mark he started engaging, and I see the appeal of the long form interview.   

Ultimately, Rogan was agreeable, but he threw out some really broad and silly generalizations.  I think Talarico may be too good and kind of this political world.  I was a bit disappointed that he didn't push back on a few issues.  He just seemed to accept Rogan's statements that cancel culture should be blamed exclusively on the left and that the Dems are anti-patriotism and anti-male.  But maybe that's just Rogan being engaging and Talarico trying to set an example so more left-wing folks go on the show.  To that extent, Talarico was fantastic.

Posted
51 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

 I was a bit disappointed that he didn't push back on a few issues.  He just seemed to accept Rogan's statements that cancel culture should be blamed exclusively on the left and that the Dems are anti-patriotism and anti-male.  But maybe that's just Rogan being engaging and Talarico trying to set an example so more left-wing folks go on the show.  To that extent, Talarico was fantastic.

That's just being a democrat in today's media culture. I stg none barring Jasmine Crockett and a couple of others push back on the bullshit and I don't understand why not. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, safe sex said:

That's just being a democrat in today's media culture. I stg none barring Jasmine Crockett and a couple of others push back on the bullshit and I don't understand why not. 

He really did seem to have lots of leeway to say "I gotta push back on your there buddy".  

No candidate is perfect, but Talarico's Christianity - which is the kind of Christianity that seems antithetical to MAGA -- is going to frustrate Dems.  

Posted
1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

He really did seem to have lots of leeway to say "I gotta push back on your there buddy".  

No candidate is perfect, but Talarico's Christianity - which is the kind of Christianity that seems antithetical to MAGA -- is going to frustrate Dems.  

Why would it frustrate Dems?

He's a gateway type between the churchy true believers and the ballot box. So many centrist both-sider types(like my in-laws who probably are too chickenshit to confess to me that they voted for Trump) need someone like Talarico to show them they can vote Democrat without having a crisis of identity over it. 

I'm an atheist but I have no qualms with elected officials being religious as long as they keep their religion separate from the job of governing and don't use religion as a basis for attacking human rights or undermining the role of government in bettering our lives. Talarico's message is inclusionary and that is essential.

I am fine with him playing that role while other leftist messengers bring the fiery heat against the fascist Republicans.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
Why would it frustrate Dems?
He's a gateway type between the churchy true believers and the ballot box. So many centrist both-sider types(like my in-laws who probably are too chickenshit to confess to me that they voted for Trump) need someone like Talarico to show them they can vote Democrat without having a crisis of identity over it. 
I'm an atheist but I have no qualms with elected officials being religious as long as they keep their religion separate from the job of governing and don't use religion as a basis for attacking human rights or undermining the role of government in bettering our lives. Talarico's message is inclusionary and that is essential.
I am fine with him playing that role while other leftist messengers bring the fiery heat against the fascist Republicans.
 

Your in-laws are shitheels who are beyond redemption and would vote for Satan himself because there’s a rumor of a trans kid playing middle school volleyball in Oregon. Stop imagining things are any other way.
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Thanks for the insight on Rogan.  At 20 minutes, he hadn't even woken up, but at the half hour mark he started engaging, and I see the appeal of the long form interview.   

Ultimately, Rogan was agreeable, but he threw out some really broad and silly generalizations.  I think Talarico may be too good and kind of this political world.  I was a bit disappointed that he didn't push back on a few issues.  He just seemed to accept Rogan's statements that cancel culture should be blamed exclusively on the left and that the Dems are anti-patriotism and anti-male.  But maybe that's just Rogan being engaging and Talarico trying to set an example so more left-wing folks go on the show.  To that extent, Talarico was fantastic.

I haven’t seen it but if he is letting falsehoods slide that is unacceptable. I have started politely but firmly saying no when my patients bring up lies at their visits. I don’t argue I just say things like that is objectively false. If you would like me to explain why I’m happy to. If not let’s move on to something else. Started doing it during Covid when patients would say it’s a hoax. I would say let’s over to the hospital and I’ll give you a tour. No takers

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
27 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

He really did seem to have lots of leeway to say "I gotta push back on your there buddy".  

No candidate is perfect, but Talarico's Christianity - which is the kind of Christianity that seems antithetical to MAGA -- is going to frustrate Dems.  

He needs to know when to be like the Jesus that whipped the money changers out of the Temple

Posted
15 hours ago, pacman said:

Talirico dishing on Rogan

 

What is going to be funny is when a bunch of people with a 7 or 8 figure net worth begin to realize they are the bulwark between the people with an 9+ figure net worth and the people with a less than 7 figure net worth.

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Talarico is a good guy, I just don't see the votes for him though

I don't see it either, but he can speak with genuine credibility on topics that connect Christian values with policy. He needs to keep doing what he's doing because he's starting to gain more notice. 

Short 1-minute clip

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/12/2025 at 11:28 AM, Colonel Sanders said:

 

That's got to sting a little.  Is Katie still with Elmo?

i rarely check this thread bc they're ineffective and depressing and generally the democratic party just pisses me off...but gotdamn Gavin may just edge out Pete for me if he keeps it up.

using the language that is needed...'fascist cuck' is poetry 😆

image.gif.9a6bd7e633574d93b30db29d6f548db2.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/19/2025 at 11:37 AM, Sawbonz said:

He needs to know when to be like the Jesus that whipped the money changers out of the Temple

Or the petulant Jesus that cursed the fig tree.  

 

(I'd rather the dems be like Elisha:  2 Kings:

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Nathan Johnson is going to be the new AG.  

I don’t think a plurality of Texans will be voting for this biography; what’s the source of your optimism?

Quote

Johnson holds a B.S. in physics and a J.D. in law. He practices law at Thompson Coburn LLP, where he specializes in trial litigation and dispute resolution. He composed dozens of musical scores for the iconic anime series Dragon Ball Z, as well as classical music for the concert stage.

 

Posted

There's more on the Mamdani transcript story. This 'violently racist' hacker claims to be the source of The New York Times' Mamdani scoop.  Piece is too long to quote in full, but I found this notable:

Quote

Benjamin Ryan, the first byline on the Times’ story about Mamdani, follows the alleged hacker on X. Ryan is the only non-staffer on the story and also the only non-political reporter. He typically writes about science for the Times, and often about trans kids in his newsletter. Ryan is a subscriber of Lasker’s email newsletter, Cremieux Recueil, according to the “reads” section of the Substack app. It is not terribly difficult to figure out why Ryan is credited on the story — he is the reporter most likely to have gotten ahold of the application. Ryan did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s not unusual for journalists to use hacked materials, or those from less-than-savory sources. But best practices around hacked materials means being judicious about what to use, and giving the audience context about what the hack was meant to accomplish. It is difficult to believe The New York Times doesn’t know that — after all, a great deal of discussion around the ethics of using data from hacks sprang from the paper’s coverage of leaked emails from a hack of Hillary Clinton’s private server. In its story about Mamdani, The Times says the hack “appears to have been carried out in order to see if Columbia was still using race-conscious affirmative action in its admission policies after the Supreme Court effectively barred the practice in 2023,” but that’s it.

The Times account makes no reference to the Anime Nazi. It does not even identify Lasker by name, nor does it note that his pseudonym is a reference to a politician who excluded Muslims from French citizenship. (Mamdani is Muslim.) Mamdani is one of Trump’s new obsessions; the president has threatened to arrest the mayoral candidate, falsely suggested Mamdani is in the US illegally, and suggested that if Mamdani is elected, New York City’s federal funding might be at risk.

The alleged hacker took credit for the story. “This wasn’t some targeted thing based on ‘beef’ in the first place,” the Anime Nazi posted on July 7th. “It was basically an accident.” After noticing Mamdani’s application, the Anime Nazi told a chat about it “because it was funny and it all spiraled from there.”

The Anime Nazi also reposted someone saying, “I don’t really care what Mamdani put on his college admissions, the idea that a guy on Poast could prank Columbia and get The New York Times newsroom to start eating itself alive is hilarious to me.”

The New York Times declined to comment on whether the paper knew there was a social media account taking credit for the hack, whether the ultimate source of the reporting was the Anime Nazi, the comments made by the Anime Nazi’s social media accounts, whether Ryan was the source of the scoop, or whether Ryan informed the paper of Lasker’s identity beyond the pseudonym. Instead, spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander provided a July 4 X thread from Patrick Healy, the assistant managing editor for standards and trust at the paper, and previous reporting from Lachlan Cartwright’s Breaker Media. An email address associated with Lasker did not return a request for comment.

The source of the leaked application was obvious to the Anime Nazi’s followers. Curtis Yarvin, personal friend of Vice President JD Vance and neo-monarchist, commented on a screenshot of a Chris Hayes post from Bluesky, saying, “He’s upset they’re not crediting [Anime Nazi].” Another person — a pseudonymous but influential account followed by Elon Musk, Yarvin, Lasker, and others — seemed to believe The New York Times knew about the Anime Nazi, posting, “It’s incredible opsec to have a hacker name so offensive that news media can’t even refer to you by your pseudonym and they have to go through your designated ‘intermediary’ instead.”

It's pretty clear that editors at the times knew the that both the hacker and his intermediary were nazis, yet assigned a politics story about a politician they don't like to a freelance health reporter, and even let him violate their own guidelines on the use of anonymous sources.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I really like Talarico, but in all honesty, the way he argues is just the other side of the theocratic coin.

There are plenty of good reasons for social programs that feed, house, educate, and provide healthcare to all people in our country.  On a surface level, it may look like a good idea to reference the teachings of Christ to support these programs as there is a lot of overlap.  I fully believe that our response to God's grace and the sacrifice and teachings of Jesus should be to care for others in all of those ways.  But that should be a personal response and call to action.  It should be a communal response among congregations of believers. 

The teachings of Christ should never be leveraged into a response that compels compliance from non-believers or those who otherwise disagree with the response - "I believe so strongly in this teaching of Jesus that I am going to vote for a government program to take money out of your pocket against your will to implement that teaching." 

Talarico likes to frame political arguments in such a way that is accusatory against Christians who disagree with him politically - "It is not Christian to vote against X program."  I just don't think that is helpful.

IMO... it would be far more effective to argue the societal benefits of a program rather than tagging on some guilt-laden religious justification.  Give the cost-benefit argument and then if you want, personalize it by saying that it happens to align with your own interpretation of how Jesus would respond to the issue.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

The teachings of Christ should never be leveraged into a response that compels compliance from non-believers or those who otherwise disagree with the response - "I believe so strongly in this teaching of Jesus that I am going to vote for a government program to take money out of your pocket against your will to implement that teaching." 

I don’t find anything about the teachings of Christ unique in that they should or should not be justified to defend collective actions.  And I say that as someone who enjoys Talarico’s calling out of the right’s hypocrisies. 
 

Following your example, what other behaviors that Jesus preached against would be impermissible for the government to enforce against non-believers?  Murder?  Theft?

Posted
9 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I don’t find anything about the teachings of Christ unique in that they should or should not be justified to defend collective actions.  And I say that as someone who enjoys Talarico’s calling out of the right’s hypocrisies. 
 

Following your example, what other behaviors that Jesus preached against would be impermissible for the government to enforce against non-believers?  Murder?  Theft?

I don't need to make a religious argument or appeal to Jesus' teachings or the Ten Commandments to make a case for why theft and murder are detrimental to a society.  That's my point.  My personal beliefs about murder are formed by both my Christian faith and my secular understanding of the political tension between freedom and order.  But I don't need to appeal to "Jesus said so" when I can also articulate that in our society, political/legal tradition, and under our Constitution, the freedom to murder citizens at will is both detrimental to order and a violation of an individual's right to life. 

In the same way, I don't need to make a religious argument or appeal to Jesus' teaching to make a case for feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care for those who are in need.  A healthy society provides services for those in need because that is conducive to maintaining good order and promoting the general welfare.  A lack of order is not conducive to the exercise and protection of anyone's rights and freedoms.  

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

I really like Talarico, but in all honesty, the way he argues is just the other side of the theocratic coin.

There are plenty of good reasons for social programs that feed, house, educate, and provide healthcare to all people in our country.  On a surface level, it may look like a good idea to reference the teachings of Christ to support these programs as there is a lot of overlap.  I fully believe that our response to God's grace and the sacrifice and teachings of Jesus should be to care for others in all of those ways.  But that should be a personal response and call to action.  It should be a communal response among congregations of believers. 

The teachings of Christ should never be leveraged into a response that compels compliance from non-believers or those who otherwise disagree with the response - "I believe so strongly in this teaching of Jesus that I am going to vote for a government program to take money out of your pocket against your will to implement that teaching." 

Talarico likes to frame political arguments in such a way that is accusatory against Christians who disagree with him politically - "It is not Christian to vote against X program."  I just don't think that is helpful.

IMO... it would be far more effective to argue the societal benefits of a program rather than tagging on some guilt-laden religious justification.  Give the cost-benefit argument and then if you want, personalize it by saying that it happens to align with your own interpretation of how Jesus would respond to the issue.   

Repped not necessarily because I agree with everything you said but because it's an insightful post and it captures a broader strategic misstep that Democrats continue to make.

I can't quite give a name to this broader strategic misstep, but the gist of it is treating the electorate like better people than they truly are, accepting certain premises at their face value and placing a strong emphasis on appealing to those premises. A naïve belief that voters have some kind of deeper convictions that will get them to switch parties.

In the W era, the Dems accepted the premise that the electorate just LOVES the troops, so we're gonna TOTALLY WIN OVER those troop-lovers by running a candidate WHO SERVED AND WAS WOUNDED IN VIETNAM instead of that effete Texas national guard and didn't see any action! How many Republicans switched party lines due to their affinity for "real" veterans?

In 2024, Joe Biden's campaign accepted the premise that the electorate just LOVES tough border policies, so we're gonna TOTALLY WIN OVER those border-hawks by trying to pass a "tough" border bill and forcing Trump to accept political responsibility when republicans refuse to vote for it! 

Then Kamala Harris took over, and her team (which was just Biden's team) accepted the premise that the electorate just LOVES Liz Cheney, so we're gonna TOTALLY WIN OVER those "classic" conservatives who miss Dick Cheney. How did that work out for them?

We've seen this tried here in Texas at the state level, too, with MJ Hegar (the "real deal" servicemember) and Colin Allred (the "real deal" Texas football player). How many "real deal" farmers and "real deal" cops do we need to churn through before party leadership finally gives up on this idiotic way of thinking?

And that brings me to Talarico. I don't dispute his religious bona fides. He is a "real deal" pastor. And if that's gonna be the campaign strategy, then his donors might as well light their money on fire for all the good it'll do.

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

A naïve belief that voters have some kind of deeper convictions that will get them to switch parties.

This.

Christianity in America, as a political motivating factor, is mostly a smokescreen, not an actual set of convictions.

You win by running a performative over-the-top personality.  Period. That's it.  We the people have spoken loudly and clearly.  Bring on Dem nominee Wooderson, or the Rock or Colbert or whatnot.  That's it.  That's where we are.

Ideas are for fucking losers.  Fireworks and insanity is how you win.

Posted
1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

In the same way, I don't need to make a religious argument or appeal to Jesus' teaching to make a case for feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care for those who are in need.

I guess I’m not following, with the animating word from your original post compel as the part I’m stuck on.  
 

I would have a philosophical distinction between the religious morals, exemplified by Christian ethics, to that of the enlightening ethics, which harken more to Greek or classical ethics.  I’m a poor scholar in this regard, but the founders lived in a time in which the classical ethics were popular amongst the elites and comprise much of the foundation for our rights as described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  
 

You seem to advocate Christian ethics, but not if they are the sole basis for law or regulations, is that correct?  Talarico should not use Christian ethics to create law except when it coincides with secular ethics (which might be utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.)?

Posted
5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

You seem to advocate Christian ethics, but not if they are the sole basis for law or regulations, is that correct?  Talarico should not use Christian ethics to create law except when it coincides with secular ethics (which might be utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.)?

That's generally where I land.  My biggest beef with Talarico's rhetoric so often is that he will present his preferred policy as THE Christian policy.

Which takes me back to the "compel" language... As a Christian, my response to the Gospel and Jesus' teaching is just that... my response.  I find it very UN-Christian to force my response on other people.  I cannot in good conscience compel my neighbor to give money out of his own pocket to provide for other people.  If they are moved to that response by their own conviction, I fully support them and am happy with that result.

Now... as a citizen of the United States of America and a party to that social contract, I have no qualms about voting to compel behaviors that I believe are for the good of this society.  That's a different arrangement altogether, but I'm not going to use my Christianity as a cudgel against others in either direction.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
48 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

That's generally where I land.  My biggest beef with Talarico's rhetoric so often is that he will present his preferred policy as THE Christian policy.

Which takes me back to the "compel" language... As a Christian, my response to the Gospel and Jesus' teaching is just that... my response.  I find it very UN-Christian to force my response on other people.  I cannot in good conscience compel my neighbor to give money out of his own pocket to provide for other people.  If they are moved to that response by their own conviction, I fully support them and am happy with that result.

Now... as a citizen of the United States of America and a party to that social contract, I have no qualms about voting to compel behaviors that I believe are for the good of this society.  That's a different arrangement altogether, but I'm not going to use my Christianity as a cudgel against others in either direction.  

You raise a good point.  Do note, however, that the Talarico oration immediately above is made in a church and not in a political context.

When Talarico speaks in a political context, at least as far as I am aware, he does not invoke Christ or Christianity.

Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You raise a good point.  Do note, however, that the Talarico oration immediately above is made in a church and not in a political context.

When Talarico speaks in a political context, at least as far as I am aware, he does not invoke Christ or Christianity.

Sorry for the Twitter link, but Talarico's feed on BlueSky is just a few months old and I remembered this particular press appearance from the election days.   He's reprised the "WWJD" argument several times since then.  I voted for Harris and his approach rubbed me the wrong way then, and still makes me uncomfortable. 

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You raise a good point.  Do note, however, that the Talarico oration immediately above is made in a church and not in a political context.

When Talarico speaks in a political context, at least as far as I am aware, he does not invoke Christ or Christianity.

Not real sure about invoking, but I do like when he uses the Bible and his own experiences to call out the hypocrisy under the dome.  

 



×
×
  • Create New...