Talarico the future?

[Doublehalf]

You can disagree with his policies but hard not to agree with his overall message in his acceptance speech. Do those on the right not like him for reasons outside of policy disagreements? I feel like if he had an R next to his name he would win Texas in a landslide running on this message. Do you agree with what he says in his speech? If not, what don't you agree with? He seems authentic and sincere at the very least.
 

https://youtu.be/clQv32p35FM?si=SiVbq3VBjAHjp1gM

Edited March 5 by Doublehalf

[red viking]

Too nice for me. I want somebody willing to fight in the filth and sewers like the wingers do. 

[Doublehalf]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

Too nice for me. I want somebody willing to fight in the filth and sewers like the wingers do. 

I think the problem is we have completely devolved as a society into modern day tribes focusing on dehumanizing and belittling each other. Everything feels worse in society than it used to. I for one am for someone that can find a way to break through with a message of positivity and unity vs what we are seeing today.

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, Doublehalf said:

I think the problem is we have completely devolved as a society into modern day tribes focusing on dehumanizing and belittling each other. Everything feels worse in society than it used to. I for one am for someone that can find a way to break through with a message of positivity and unity vs what we are seeing today.

Agreed

[red viking]

2 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

I think the problem is we have completely devolved as a society into modern day tribes focusing on dehumanizing and belittling each other. Everything feels worse in society than it used to. I for one am for someone that can find a way to break through with a message of positivity and unity vs what we are seeing today.

Wingers started it. They'll have to back down first. Until then, this is tribal. I want somebody thats gonna go after the wingers with vengeance, hatred and impunity. 

Edited March 5 by red viking

[Doublehalf]

20 minutes ago, red viking said:

Wingers started it. They'll have to back down first. Until then, this is tribal. I want somebody thats gonna go after the wingers with vengeance, hatred and impunity. 

I don't agree with sinking to that level and if you want things to truly change, you can't do it by playing the game they write the rules to.

[wrestlingguy]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Wingers started it. They'll have to back down first. Until then, this is tribal. I want somebody thats gonna go after the wingers with vengeance, hatred and impunity. 

You sound like a child. You are a grown ass man blaming a political party for everything that is wrong in your life. 

Only you control the path of your own life. It's called accountability. Do some policies make things a little harder? Maybe. That isn't unique to the right or the left so I suggest you figure out a perspective that helps you live the best possible life and stop blaming someone else for your issues.

[wrestlingguy]

4 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

You can disagree with his policies but hard not to agree with his overall message in his acceptance speech. Do those on the right not like him for reasons outside of policy disagreements? I feel like if he had an R next to his name he would win Texas in a landslide running on this message. Do you agree with what he says in his speech? If not, what don't you agree with? He seems authentic and sincere at the very least.
 

https://youtu.be/clQv32p35FM?si=SiVbq3VBjAHjp1gM

Does anyone else get an Obama vibe? He is very charismatic for sure. 

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

You sound like a child. You are a grown ass man blaming a political party for everything that is wrong in your life. 

Only you control the path of your own life. It's called accountability. Do some policies make things a little harder? Maybe. That isn't unique to the right or the left so I suggest you figure out a perspective that helps you live the best possible life and stop blaming someone else for your issues.

My life is fine. The trumptards put the country itself in the gutter. 

[mspart]

I don't think Talarico would or could be a Republican.   He holds views that are not in line with the R party.   If he is trying to centralize himself we have a great example in the new gov of VA.   She ran as a "moderate" and is governing like a left wing lunatic.  I think Talarico will be the same no matter what he says right now.   He has to moderate to get any Rs to vote for him that are fooled into thinking he is not a crazy whack job.   

- Texas Democrat Rep. James Talarico recently claimed on "The Joe Rogan Experience" that the Bible supports abortion.    I believe Exodus 20:13 says, "Thou shalt not kill [murder.]"

- “The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines of Genesis, use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity, the second is the feminine Hebrew noun for spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary.”   Except where Jesus calls Him His Father.  

- “But I say all this in terms of in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and, and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says, ‘If it is God’s will, let it be done. Let it be, let it happen.   So to me that is a an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that that, that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom.”   The full quote from Luke is as follows:   

²⁶ In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰ But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

³⁴ “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

³⁵ The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called^[b] the Son of God. ³⁶ Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. ³⁷ For no word from God will ever fail.”

³⁸ “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Where in here did Gabriel say, "if this is ok with you"?   He said this was happening and Mary said what she says in verse 38.   There was no question, there was no if you feel like it.   It was a statement of fact.  

Now granted these are all Biblically related items and some folks may not think that is a big deal, but he is trying to say things that are not true but say they are because he went to a seminary so he knows what he is talking about.   I don't think these things would survive in a R primary.   They obviously do in a D primary which tells you where the Ds are at with regard to the Bible.   Here is another biblical passage Eph 4:14, that we henceforth be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and their cunning and craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

In 2 Tim 4:3 it says, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.

mspart

[Doublehalf]

59 minutes ago, mspart said:

I don't think Talarico would or could be a Republican.   He holds views that are not in line with the R party.   If he is trying to centralize himself we have a great example in the new gov of VA.   She ran as a "moderate" and is governing like a left wing lunatic.  I think Talarico will be the same no matter what he says right now.   He has to moderate to get any Rs to vote for him that are fooled into thinking he is not a crazy whack job.   

- Texas Democrat Rep. James Talarico recently claimed on "The Joe Rogan Experience" that the Bible supports abortion.    I believe Exodus 20:13 says, "Thou shalt not kill [murder.]"

- “The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines of Genesis, use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity, the second is the feminine Hebrew noun for spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary.”   Except where Jesus calls Him His Father.  

- “But I say all this in terms of in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and, and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says, ‘If it is God’s will, let it be done. Let it be, let it happen.   So to me that is a an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that that, that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom.”   The full quote from Luke is as follows:   

²⁶ In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰ But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

³⁴ “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

³⁵ The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called^[b] the Son of God. ³⁶ Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. ³⁷ For no word from God will ever fail.”

³⁸ “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Where in here did Gabriel say, "if this is ok with you"?   He said this was happening and Mary said what she says in verse 38.   There was no question, there was no if you feel like it.   It was a statement of fact.  

Now granted these are all Biblically related items and some folks may not think that is a big deal, but he is trying to say things that are not true but say they are because he went to a seminary so he knows what he is talking about.   I don't think these things would survive in a R primary.   They obviously do in a D primary which tells you where the Ds are at with regard to the Bible.   Here is another biblical passage Eph 4:14, that we henceforth be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and their cunning and craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

In 2 Tim 4:3 it says, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.

mspart

Bro I'll be honest, when I see that much written about bible verses I kind of shut down and ignore the rest. Frankly, him talking about religion so much is one of the things about him I'm not a fan of. As for everything else, he seems to have grasped the issue isn't right vs left but bottom vs top. 
 

Did you watch his speech? 

[Rassling]

I typically don’t read beyond 150-200 words for any post. 

[mspart]

I don't disagree on the above 2 posts.   But what I was trying to show is that he has far left views that cannot be squared with the Bible or R orthodoxy.   So any attempt to make himself seem more moderate should be taken with a grain of salt, similar to what we are witnessing with the new VA gov.   That's under 200 words I think.   

mspart

[jross]

6 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

You can disagree with his policies but hard not to agree with his overall message in his acceptance speech. Do those on the right not like him for reasons outside of policy disagreements? I feel like if he had an R next to his name he would win Texas in a landslide running on this message. Do you agree with what he says in his speech? If not, what don't you agree with? He seems authentic and sincere at the very least.
 

https://youtu.be/clQv32p35FM?si=SiVbq3VBjAHjp1gM

I know nothing about him.  His speech was good.  I’d want to do research on what his policies are.

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

I don't disagree on the above 2 posts.   But what I was trying to show is that he has far left views that cannot be squared with the Bible or R orthodoxy.   So any attempt to make himself seem more moderate should be taken with a grain of salt, similar to what we are witnessing with the new VA gov.   That's under 200 words I think.   

mspart

It was a fine post, nothing wrong with it at all.  And your instincts are right on, he’s as far left as jasmine and Beto was.  He’ll never win a statewide election in Texas.  He’s for abortions anytime, every crazy gender issue out there - says God is non-binary.  This about wraps him up:  

     Matthew Schmitz, a conservative commentator, wrote on X, "James Talarico’s woke Billy Graham shtick has the same function as Tim Walz’s trans-affirming Elmer Fudd persona. Democrats desperately want a rural/religious-coded white male who can make their most unpopular positions seem American as apple pie."
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/god-non-binary-texas-dem-nominee-talaricos-past-remarks-abortion-race-gender-draw-scrutiny

[Doublehalf]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

I don't disagree on the above 2 posts.   But what I was trying to show is that he has far left views that cannot be squared with the Bible or R orthodoxy.   So any attempt to make himself seem more moderate should be taken with a grain of salt, similar to what we are witnessing with the new VA gov.   That's under 200 words I think.   

mspart

I don't think conservatism or their values own what it means to be Christian. The right has many views that also don't square with Christian teachings so I think comparing it in that way is pointless.

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I don't think conservatism or their values own what it means to be Christian. The right has many views that also don't square with Christian teachings so I think comparing it in that way is pointless.

The wingers are about as anti Christian as you can get. In fact, I'd say approximately 0 of their predominant beliefs are biblical. Particularly the new testament. They're literally the party of Satan. 

[Doublehalf]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Matthew Schmitz, a conservative commentator, wrote on X, "James Talarico’s woke Billy Graham shtick has the same function as Tim Walz’s trans-affirming Elmer Fudd persona. Democrats desperately want a rural/religious-coded white male who can make their most unpopular positions seem American as apple pie."

I'm sure the conservative commentator doesn't have an agenda to paint talarico as anything but a far left lunatic which he certainly is not. They can try, but when you actually listen to him, he's moderate compared to what other people want and understands that politics of division are poisoning and have been ruining our country. 
 

At a certain point, the culture war politics should be much farther down the priority list than our country being completely torn apart by tribalism. Gender affirming care really isn't doing anything to ruin your life and it's always been a right wing point to insert their Christian beliefs on the entirety of America which is just patently ridiculous. 
 

Also isn't god just... god? Were you taking a piss next to him at one point and look down and saw he had a dick? Hahaha... Arguing about gods gender which apparently you are engaging with to me just seems absurd on its face but you do you.

Edited March 6 by Doublehalf

[JimmySpeaks]

4 hours ago, mspart said:

I don't think Talarico would or could be a Republican.   He holds views that are not in line with the R party.   If he is trying to centralize himself we have a great example in the new gov of VA.   She ran as a "moderate" and is governing like a left wing lunatic.  I think Talarico will be the same no matter what he says right now.   He has to moderate to get any Rs to vote for him that are fooled into thinking he is not a crazy whack job.   

- Texas Democrat Rep. James Talarico recently claimed on "The Joe Rogan Experience" that the Bible supports abortion.    I believe Exodus 20:13 says, "Thou shalt not kill [murder.]"

- “The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines of Genesis, use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity, the second is the feminine Hebrew noun for spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary.”   Except where Jesus calls Him His Father.  

- “But I say all this in terms of in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and, and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says, ‘If it is God’s will, let it be done. Let it be, let it happen.   So to me that is a an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that that, that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom.”   The full quote from Luke is as follows:   

²⁶ In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰ But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

³⁴ “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

³⁵ The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called^[b] the Son of God. ³⁶ Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. ³⁷ For no word from God will ever fail.”

³⁸ “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Where in here did Gabriel say, "if this is ok with you"?   He said this was happening and Mary said what she says in verse 38.   There was no question, there was no if you feel like it.   It was a statement of fact.  

Now granted these are all Biblically related items and some folks may not think that is a big deal, but he is trying to say things that are not true but say they are because he went to a seminary so he knows what he is talking about.   I don't think these things would survive in a R primary.   They obviously do in a D primary which tells you where the Ds are at with regard to the Bible.   Here is another biblical passage Eph 4:14, that we henceforth be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and their cunning and craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

In 2 Tim 4:3 it says, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.

mspart

I see what you did there.  

[JimmySpeaks]

30 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I'm sure the conservative commentator doesn't have an agenda to paint talarico as anything but a far left lunatic which he certainly is not. They can try, but when you actually listen to him, he's moderate compared to what other people want and understands that politics of division are poisoning and have been ruining our country. 
 

At a certain point, the culture war politics should be much farther down the priority list than our country being completely torn apart by tribalism. Gender affirming care really isn't doing anything to ruin your life and it's always been a right wing point to insert their Christian beliefs on the entirety of America which is just patently ridiculous. 
 

Also isn't god just... god? Were you taking a piss next to him at one point and look down and saw he had a dick? Hahaha... Arguing about gods gender which apparently you are engaging with to me just seems absurd on its face but you do you.

Didn’t Joe Rogan endorse Bernie Sanders in 2020? 

[braves121]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

It was a fine post, nothing wrong with it at all.  And your instincts are right on, he’s as far left as jasmine and Beto was.  He’ll never win a statewide election in Texas.  He’s for abortions anytime, every crazy gender issue out there - says God is non-binary.  This about wraps him up:  

     Matthew Schmitz, a conservative commentator, wrote on X, "James Talarico’s woke Billy Graham shtick has the same function as Tim Walz’s trans-affirming Elmer Fudd persona. Democrats desperately want a rural/religious-coded white male who can make their most unpopular positions seem American as apple pie."
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/god-non-binary-texas-dem-nominee-talaricos-past-remarks-abortion-race-gender-draw-scrutiny

Genuine question, what’s so crazy about thinking that an omnipotent being that controls everything and has never been proven to exist be genderless? Is it as crazy as thinking a virgin could get pregnant by said being?

[mspart]

58 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I don't think conservatism or their values own what it means to be Christian. The right has many views that also don't square with Christian teachings so I think comparing it in that way is pointless.

Again you missed the point.   Of course conservatism does not determine Christian dogma.   I didn't say that.   What I'm saying is that they generally believe the Bible and when someone says these things, they generally are not going to think that is right.   Generally.     And then after saying that stuff, to try to say things that will appeal to conservatives to show he is much more moderate than he is, it a hypocrisy they will not like either.   That's all I'm saying.   I don't think there will be conservatives that vote for Talarico.  

mspart

[mspart]

55 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I'm sure the conservative commentator doesn't have an agenda to paint talarico as anything but a far left lunatic which he certainly is not. They can try, but when you actually listen to him, he's moderate compared to what other people want and understands that politics of division are poisoning and have been ruining our country. 
 

At a certain point, the culture war politics should be much farther down the priority list than our country being completely torn apart by tribalism. Gender affirming care really isn't doing anything to ruin your life and it's always been a right wing point to insert their Christian beliefs on the entirety of America which is just patently ridiculous. 
 

Also isn't god just... god? Were you taking a piss next to him at one point and look down and saw he had a dick? Hahaha... Arguing about gods gender which apparently you are engaging with to me just seems absurd on its face but you do you.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-texas-republicans-team-against-110000378.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANKiaaHtRlPxVqyLgKtXnvVXRjUcSi8kd_SoKyGNOg-Tk56t3fJAFBAMsxKAw8PPndm1x5dXvGQtA-MzasPn3zSPVWwpxkqA8g5WE3fiL_odLAd-W4oK9IijYOW9Kfcipj_PETOpWtP-PP6jm3T7adUGbk3P4FrqfjFJTQzeaXdO

“Our trans community needs abortion care, too,” Talarico said in the video. “Defending trans Texans is something that we have to do every day at the state capitol, and you better believe that I’ll be giving sermons on that, too.”

U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill wrote on X that he could not “wait to hear the Democratic Party’s newest star” explain “the other four genders” to Texas voters, referencing past testimony in which Talarico said there are “many more than two biological sexes — there are six” during a Texas House public education committee hearing.

This is mainstream thought?   Not seeing it.   80-20 are against gender chemical or surgical care for minors.   That would be mainstream thought. 

mspart

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

31 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Didn’t Joe Rogan endorse Bernie Sanders in 2020? 

Yeah lol

Really Conservative!  

People who make that claim have no clue.  They just parrot what their wokester winger social media tells them in the morning.

[mspart]

10 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Genuine question, what’s so crazy about thinking that an omnipotent being that controls everything and has never been proven to exist be genderless? Is it as crazy as thinking a virgin could get pregnant by said being?

Turning that around, what is so crazy about thinking that an omnipotent being that controls everything and has spoken to different people as recorded in the Bible, but never been scientifically proven to exist be gendered, as in Father in Heaven as Jesus called Him?  As in Father of our spirits as Paul said.   If as you say he is an omnipotent being, is it crazy to think he could not cause a virgin to get pregnant?   He caused an old lady past menopause to give birth to Isaac, Abraham's son.   

mspart