It was insensitive of me to suggest that any LGBTQ+ individuals should simply accept this woman personally, and I apologize and will choose my words more carefully. I don’t mean that you (or anyone) should accept her personally or her intolerant views.
I do, however, think it’s better in our two party system to have an intolerant person cast a vote for the more tolerant party than to cast a vote for the less tolerant party. I worry that when we use shame as a social/political tool, it’s more likely to create a firm adversary than it is to correct an imperfect ally.
I heard someone on the radio this morning with the “Hilary and Biden are connected to the app maker” conspiracy theory and it’s just so dumb I can’t be bothered to figure out why people think that. The app fucked up, so they’re having to go back to the paper records to figure things out, so the app isn’t even relevant. But the Republicans/Russians will probably fixate on this to create conspiracy theories to try to convince Bernie supporters or whoever to not vote in the election.
If she actually read the Bible a lot, she would realize that many of its laws and regulations are out of date (as others have commented) and that Jesus himself by all accounts was a pretty chill dude who I think would be quite cool with gay people. I don’t think many of this type of Christian read the Bible — they just soak up crap from local or televised pastors and clergy.
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Matt 15.10
My very nearly became a Lutheran Minister friend insists this applies to cocks as much as it does bacon.
Sure. It was also important for German Jews to accept the antisemitism of the nazis, right? After all, they only wanted to utterly destroy them… what’s that compared to saving the German economy? It’s just a little light dehumanization, what’s it going to hurt… /s
Why should smaller states get to winnow down the list of viable candidates before people who live in more populous states get a chance to weigh in?
As a resident of the most populous state in the union, the primary race is usually all but decided before I even get a chance to cast a vote. Why should the residents of a state with a population of 3 million and a demographic that is well over 90% white get so much influence over who gets to run for President but the residents of a diverse state with a population of 40 million don’t get any meaningful input at all?
It’s not like the Democrats are begging her or people like her not to vote for them. They just aren’t going out of their way to ATTRACT bigots to the party.
If you have to use bigoted language to appease people, then fuck that noise. Lady needs to get used to the fact that not everyone in the world shares her blinkered bigoted world view…
I am also a resident of the most populous state, and the reason is because it is too expensive to campaign in California, meaning that only candidates that can raise huge $$$ before the first vote would even be nominally viable, and then would have a nearly insurmountable lead. This disproportionately favors the “party elites” and friends of billionaires. If California voted first in 2008, Obama would have never been in the running, and if they did in 2016, Bernie would have been out of the race on day 1, in both cases essentially without the ability to demonstrate their support. Iowa and New Hampshire assign very few delegates – a good showing there (or any other hypothetical small early state) can enable a less well known candidate to gain exposure and raise money, but they still need to win actual delegates in the larger states.
Now if you want to suggest a system where voting day is assigned by congressional district rather than state, sure, but that sounds like a system that would basically confuse everyone, suppress voter turnout, and be universally hated.
Again, Iowa and New Hampshire are especially bad reflectors of the demographics of the american electorate (at least the democratic party voters), and almost any other choice you could make would be better.
I don’t think California should get to go first either. I just don’t think that the country’s major population centers should be effectively disenfranchised from choosing who gets to run for President. We get screwed over badly enough with the Electoral College and disproportional representation in the Senate.
Because if we let states that aren’t over 90% white set the tone certain people we have to tolerate may become uncomfortable.
And it is critically important that mostly rural, mostly white, often conservative states anoint which less well known/viable candidate gets a toe hold.
The paced out nature of our primaries has never let a bad long shot candidate climb to the lead and eventually take power.
No state should be going first. All the “test the candidates” and “leaves the door open for underdogs” excuses are recent justification that have come up as movements for electoral reform have become more and more critical of how we run our primaries. The system we have now shook out of reforms in the 60’s and 70’s as a result of small and whiter states jockeying to increase their influence.
A major reason it’s so expensive to campaign in the US is the way the primary season is spread over nearly a year. It turns the campaign season into a multi year affair. We need one primary day, we need to kill caucuses, and we need to pick candidates at most 6 months before the election itself.
I’m pretty sure rejection is being confronted with a conflicting view, and that the choice of voting against your interest because your bigotry outweighs your sense of self-preservation doesn’t jive with saying gay people shouldn’t run for president so we don’t lose their vote.
Or are you suggesting that the woman refusing to vote for a candidate she likes because he is gay would suddenly change her mind as long as she’s never called a homophobe?
You don’t understand the Bible. The Old Testament - which contains the prohibitions you are referring to - is comprised of laws for the Israelites/Jews. The New Testament, which says nothing about shellfish or mixed fabric, is the standard for Christians/Non-Jews.
Trying to convince a Christian to follow the “old” law is pointless. They don’t ascribe to that law. It would be like trying to convince an airplane pilot in 2020 that he needs to follow the rules for a schooner captain in 1778. Different time, different place, different set of rules.
The issue is that certain sects of Christians like to bring up the old testament when it suits them, especially quoting Leviticus on homosexuality (while not quoting Leviticus on the coming of the mold).
Couple of things here: 1. No I don’t trust he’d pick a “good staff” because a lot of his staff is former Hillary Clinton staff 2. You seem to equate rational choices and good choices; example: rational choice is say “let’s totally scrap Affordable Care Act, and go back to way things were before”, and this is not a good choice 3. You also seem to think that this is already a contest between Pete Buttigieg and Donald Trump and it is not
Oh, I know. I don’t disagree. I was just pointing out that this particular counter-argument about shellfish and mixed fabrics sounds ignorant to an actual Christian.
I’m pretty sure that most “Christians” in the U.S. wouldn’t understand the distinction either. The lady in this video certainly wouldn’t. But I don’t think of those people as real Christians.
Hogwash. I understand the Bible quite well, better than most (and you). First, Matt. 5:17-19, Luke 16:17. The book gives no such free pass from the laws of the Old Testament. Going further, if it did then this “perfect” book, clearly required a revision. Oops. And, if that were the case, then the ten commandments are goners.
Any rationale based on bronze-age goat herders retelling even older stories is going to have problems. The whole, “this counts, but this doesn’t,” is just one of the mental gymnastics required, but first there has to be a fabrication that any of that parts don’t count. Going by what’s on the pages themselves, that can’t be done.
