AOC: The true face of the DNC

Jesus certainly warned of hypocrisy and certainly spoke against immorality and certainly condemned folks and their actions and attitudes.

For example, he condemned the generation and judged them as wicked, evil, and adulterous.

He judged the Pharisees and other religious leaders of the day, saying they were hypocrites and greedy.

He condemned the people and even his own disciples for their lack of belief, as to why He could not perform miracles in their city.

Absolutely, He preached forgiveness and to not judge people.  But that is not to be used as permitting immorality and law-breaking.  

He certainly condemned the moneychangers and merchants at the temple.

In the Greek, the word ‘judge’ can be used as simply making moral judgments on whether something is right or wrong.  It can also be used to mean making condemning judgments, or with a despiteful attitude.  For example: First remove the mote from your own eye.  Even Paul used it this way later when he asked: Why do you judge your brother?  In other words, why are you spitefully judging him.

So, when Jesus says not to judge he is not saying not to make a ‘moral judgment’ but to not despise him or look down on him and see yourself as morally superior.

So, you are still to recognize what is wrong.  Then you make sure that you remove your own mote and ask for forgiveness for your sins as well.

Then, in a humble way, go to whomever you have seen the immorality in as a Christian brother and not in a spiteful, or superior way.

The obvious example of this is how Jesus handled the woman at the well.  He was not spiteful or mean.  But he pointed out that what she was doing was immoral and wrong.  He did not tell her what she was doing was okay and that it was not hurting anyone else.  No, he told her to, “Go, and sin no more”.  For sure, He judged her and condemned what she was doing.  But He did it in a kind and humble manner.

But even the current civil laws were acknowledged to be followed.  For example: “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.  

You still need laws that need to be enforced for a moral and civil society.  Unless you are the sort that sincerely believes that permitting any and all things in society will not have a longterm negative effect on your Nation.  Because, it can be easily argued that is a lazy and selfish attitude.  No one should want a morally decadent, or unlawful, society.  Nor should they want to try to navigate their children through the dregs of it as they grow up.  It is too tempting and easy for them to go astray, no matter the homelife.  

@soup-can

Where else would they go?

I have been saying all along that Biden made sure to take out the best insurance policy a politician ever took out:  He made Harris his Vice-President.

I do not see a reasonable way for them to convince her to step aside; this is her one and only chance to be President.

Her running showed she was not liked and respected enough to make it in an election.  

She will have to have Biden win and then early on resign.  Then she can take over.  Then if things go well enough, she will have a decent chance as an incumbent.

But once folks realized how incompetent she is and that she cannot even give a decent speech -- it was all over for her.

But the USA is at the right time for a female President.  People would be so gleeful just to vote for a female.  It is just that Clinton and Harris did not set well with folks.

But both parties should be pushing more center-type females to run.  Just as they should have more younger folks running.

@Raiders22

 I agree with a ton of what you say here, but we both know the DNC is handcuffed on their decision.  Its Joe or Harris and we also both know that the DNC didn't want either one to be in this position to begin with.  It's kind of ironic that Biden took out the insurance policy on Harris just like Obama did for him.  To think back to when I heard Joe speak before the corn-pop malarkey, I remember laughing and saying this guy is a moron.  This is only a 4 year lease like a car if it is Joe/Donald rematch.

The hate displayed not just here but open your door, like the world is going to end or there will now be a 'KING'....ok just go ask Brittany Griner on how communist Russia is compared to the USA.

how much pot do you people smoke?  We have Cheech vs Chong here for president.  I get its legal now but really???  It is really scary that the media has put our country into this hatred, the media is dividing.  In 2028 the hatred of republicans will be towards Desantis or whoever they put up at top vs the likes of.....

@soup-can

 Correct.  That is why I say that about Biden having the best insurance policy.  
No one wants Harris and Biden knows it.  
They also do not have a slick way to push her aside for Newsom really, etc. 

Yes, but this forum is very mild compared to some other political ones.  The vitriol is awful on them from the Left — and it is allowed more so.
There are some other more ‘serious’ ones where it is not that bad and the discussions are more in-depth and nuanced.  But even there, none of them can figure a serious way around the dilemma they have put themselves in.  

I think they have to stick with Biden until he can turn it over to Harris.  

I am all over the place and it is sad how folks view the USA abroad now.  Even in a lot of the places they have a lot of the anti-Trump influence from the media.  But there is a large sentiment questioning how the greatest country can have these two guys as the best candidates.

But with the ‘rise’ in Europe right now and in some spots in SA of more right-leaning candidates — it makes you wonder.  Maybe Canada and the USA will swing that way for a while now.  
It is hard to see it happening right now.  But time will tell.  
But you are right that the media will certainly turn their wrath on whomever decides to give it a shot.  DeSantis and Vivek found out.  If Haley had beaten Trump, she would have seen it. 
That could be a large reason better and younger folks do not step up — they do not want to face that onslaught.  

"That could be a large reason better and younger folks do not step up — they do not want to face that onslaught."

Exactly, especially if they really are capable and can thrive in the private sector.

I don't know what that party did to that woman but that isn't Kamala Harris. She's a clone or something. I've been familiar with Kamala Harris for two decades. She is (was) an intelligent woman. She got her legal degree from Hastings (Berkeley). I saw her speak multiple times when she was DA of San Fran. She was an impassioned orator. She was a middle of the road, law and order democrat. She gets the push from the party and of a sudden she's talking about listening to Tupac and smoking weed. Now she's a complete space case. I'm baffled.

@StumpTownStu

No sir.  She was not and has never been particularly bright.  I have addressed this on here in more detail some time ago. 

Certainly she has been successful despite not passing the CA bar right away.  In her defense it is a notoriously difficult one.

But she is far from an idiot.  She simply is not as smart as people thought.

She seemed middle-of-the-road because she really was too wary of taking positions early on.  This seemed to actually help sometimes.  But a lot of folks did not like that at a time CA needed some criminal reform she did not take a position and the proposed bills would die off.  So, even though she might have tried to have been cautious in her decisions -- it turned out to simply look like indecisiveness at the time, and even trying to flip-flop or straddle the fence on major issues.

Yes, she has always been passionate and driven.  She takes too much flak for Brown jumpstarting her I think.  Newsom never has to deal with this.  Brown helped jumpstart a lot of political careers.

She seemed to have a particularly good bearing on crimes against women, especially younger women.  I forget the name of the program she started, or at least promoted at the time, and am too lazy to look it up.  But it did very well to help some of the kids early on and help to focus them.

Then, when she got into a job that required her to take actions directly against things that she, previously, had not taken hard stances on -- it looked bad to some folks.

They thought that she went too far to the 'hard-line' approach.  

So, then it started to seem that she would adjust her stances and approaches on the fly, so to speak.  People were unsure if this were to be politically appeasing or if she simply was unsure of the 'correct' position to take.

I have always liked her before.  I like driven people and particularly women and, especially good-looking ones.  I do not have to agree with their political views.

But when someone is put in position(s) that are sort of above where they might should be, their good and bad traits become emphasized more.  I would argue that the faulty traits become over-emphasized more.  That is the case with Harris.  They for sure showed up when she got on the national stage more.

As far as her giving speeches -- yes and no.  I always tell people when they are tentative about giving a speech that there are three things that make it easier to do:  be familiar with the topic, sound positive and confident, and be familiar with your audience.

A retired fire-jumper chief was telling me last week that he went over to Prescott, AZ when Biden gave the speech at the memorial of the fire-jumpers that died there -- maybe 12 years ago.  He said Biden gave an awesome, passionate speech with no teleprompter.  He says Biden used to be able to give a speech.  

My contention is that there are a lot of examples of this and folk's perception of this.  People will say things like Clinton and Palin were great at knowing the speeches well enough that if the prompters failed they were still great.  You hear critics say Obama was not the same off the prompter.  You hear that Trump is a free-lancer.  Bush, was not known as a great speaker, but a lot of folks thought he did a great job in the speeches after 9/11, etc.  Some of them are quick-witted and can adapt and respond to questions fairly quick -- Reagan, Trump, Obama and Clinton.  Others seem to bumble and feel like they have to get their thoughts together like Bush and Hillary.  I think Harris falls solidly in the latter category.  She seems not to fully have gotten her thoughts together when she is free-styling or being asked an off topic question.

The problem seems to be that Harris can be passionate about the subject she is informed about and when prepared.  But when she is not well-informed or 'fully stanced up' -- it shows up badly.  She needs to be better prepared and seem more informed on the subjects.

I think there is plenty of time for her to 'work' on these things.  Like I have been saying, the USA is more than willing to give a female a shot at the Presidency.

It could have very easily been her.  Maybe still could be if she tried to improve.  She needs a great 'coach' on the things she needs to improve on and turn the public perception of her around.  

I certainly do not want it to be her -- because I do not agree with her political views.  But she has been set up for success and had/has an awesome chance to make the next step.

If Biden wins and then turns it over to her.  She will essentially have been running for the office for close to 12 years.  The next 2-3 years she could easily change the public perception.  People are easily influenced by a great speech here or there and a couple of good things done for the nation along the way.

@UNIMAN

Maybe, maybe not.

If you are already in the political sphere and that is your passion -- the question has to be asked why are you not stepping up?

Yes, if they are already in the private sector that is one thing.

But if you are in politics -- you know how dirty, etc. that it can be.

The question remains why are you not driven enough to take the next step, and the next, etc.

The same as a guy in a corporate environment.  Why is he remaining a low-level manager?  Why does he not do what it takes to become a mid-level manager and then on up to a CEO, etc.

That is the reason so few are at the top and it is so competitive and so few succeed -- because a lot of folks are driven to take the next step(s).

My question is why does that not seem to be the case for President -- as much as it used to be?

There are simply mediocre candidates running now.

Newsom should be the next President with ease.  I do not like his politics -- but he should have run against Biden no matter what.  In four more years it seems that CA will be even more of a dumpster fire.  This was his time to run.  It seems to be tentativeness.  Guys that wanted that job used to attempt to make a run nearly every cycle they could until it was obvious they were not going to get it -- regardless of incumbent.

How is it that the GOP could not find anyone but DeSantis that could make a case in lieu of Trump?

My contention is that nowadays these folks seem more tentative than in years past.  So, I wonder if they are just worried about the Media destroying their lives?  Or their families lives -- because the Media really seems to be more personal about the candidates families than before.

I am really interested in why more 'good' candidates are not stepping forward at a younger age today for the top political position.  

@Raiders22

 Good points.

@Raiders22

 I think we have a different comprehension of Christ's teachings and his purpose. I never said Christ said the OT had no meaning or value but as you mentioned in the second paragraph that he came to FUFILL the law, he came to replace it and to move to a NEW law, a NEW way of thinking and one that is less of the letter and more of the spirit. The OT is lead by the nose tell you every single stinking thing you can and cannot do because the people were incapable of inward introspection and higher purpose actions. The OT was about telling people how to eat and prepare food, to be counted, the exact precise description of many of the needs of life and to stop worshiping idols and follow the prophets. Israel for thousands of years went in and out of bondage, in and out of following pagan idols to worship and then get wrecked and return to their origin. The OT reminds me of K-3 education, very literal and matter of fact, very much control and lack of free agency and will, very much an inability to be trusted and consider more than what one day was and if you do not follow the detailed step by step wordings and practices that you would die.

Christ took the old law, refined it and brought in the NEW law. The funny thing is that even in the OT there was little reference to acceptance, tolerance, open minded thinking, missionary work to the gentiles there was NONE of that. The NT is pretty much ALL of that, Christ said follow him and see his good works and glorify the father. Outside the money changers in the temple Christ did not use the heavy stick to force people to accept his teachings there was no reference to throat slitting or destroying the gentiles as a means of living, Christ was non-violent a true humanitarian who was open and accepting to ALL, the sinner the saint the gentile the believer the sick and afflicted the prostitute the infirmed...everyone. It is funny how your perception of the NT vs OT compared to mine. To me the OT is reciting the alphabet and making sounds of the letters, the NT is making words, sentences, songs, poetry, describing the beauty of the world and taking the next step in the evolution of our existence.

Christians and especially ultra conservative intolerant segments are living the OT, they follow the letter of the law and have forgotten that Christ taught the exact opposite and that nobody is to judge except the creator, we are to love all and accept all we are to serve and think of others as to how we live our life and that means doing the MOST for those who are not like you and considering society when interacting with society. Current project 2025 knucklehead Christians are straight out of the draconian OT non-Christians who force their will onto a society when Christ taught and led in the exact opposite way.

Most of Christ's reference to the OT is for obvious reasons, that scripture was what the person had and what they were taught so you do not completely walk away from what people know when you are teaching them, a good teacher knows how to transition and introduce a higher way of thinking acting and living while weaning people from a lesser productive and narrow minded thought process. You do not elevate and change and evolve immediately it takes transition effort example and time. I would suggest that maybe 5% of Christians follow the NT teachings, most Christians are nose followers who fall into simple mindsets and are not motivated to evolve into a higher law and a selfless way of living. It is thought that Christ and his disciples were living a quasi law of consecration where nobody had possessions and everyone functioned as a single unit that the needs of all were serviced by all and nobody cared about what they had or what they owned, how much money they had or where they were going to be from day to day. You can follow the OT old law and hide behind the archaic and barbaric teaching structure, I will see the OT for the purpose it served and try to live the NEW law personally and that is more about society and others and less about my personal narrow way of thinking.

@wallstreetcappers

 best points ! 

@wallstreetcappers

I never said Christ said the OT had no meaning or value but as you mentioned in the second paragraph that he came to FUFILL the law, he came to replace it and to move to a NEW law, a NEW way of thinking and one that is less of the letter and more of the spirit.

 Yes.  I think a lot of folks use them and misunderstand it and go too far with it.

For example: Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

Certainly the emphasis is made on the compassion and understanding and kindness.  I pointed all of that out.

The OT was about telling people how to eat and prepare food, to be counted, the exact precise description of many of the needs of life and to stop worshiping idols and follow the prophets. Israel for thousands of years went in and out of bondage, in and out of following pagan idols to worship and then get wrecked and return to their origin.

This was part of it.  But there is far more to it than that.  You still have the ethical and moral standard which all of the Western world still use to base their laws and guidance on.

To me the OT is reciting the alphabet and making sounds of the letters, the NT is making words, sentences, songs, poetry, describing the beauty of the world and taking the next step in the evolution of our existence.

This is not uncommon.  A lot of folks superficially view the Old Testament this way.  But the foundational aspect is ignored by some of the folks.  Not saying you, but a lot do this to justify their acceptance of immorality in their own lives or other's.

Christians and especially ultra conservative intolerant segments are living the OT, they follow the letter of the law and have forgotten that Christ taught the exact opposite and that nobody is to judge except the creator, we are to love all and accept all we are to serve and think of others as to how we live our life and that means doing the MOST for those who are not like you and considering society when interacting with society.

Sadly, this is largely correct.  But this still harkens back to the vlid point that is constantly made about justifying bad actions and wars religiously:  You should never judge a worldview, solely, by its abusers.  Absolutely folks need to enact the laws and morality with kindness and understanding.  I pointed this out as well.

@wallstreetcappers

 Current project 2025 knucklehead Christians are straight out of the draconian OT non-Christians who force their will onto a society when Christ taught and led in the exact opposite way.

This is a very broad and all-encompassing over-generalization.  This totally ignores the sense of the feeling by even non-religious folks about the concern with the direction the USA has taken morally and ethically coupled with the overreach of the government.

Again, you cannot judge a view totally by its radical promoters.  Just because you do not agree with their side politically should not mean you cannot understand the broader concern for the direction of the country.

@wallstreetcappers

 Most of Christ's reference to the OT is for obvious reasons, that scripture was what the person had and what they were taught so you do not completely walk away from what people know when you are teaching them, a good teacher knows how to transition and introduce a higher way of thinking acting and living while weaning people from a lesser productive and narrow minded thought process.

I am not totally sure what you are trying to say here.  When He is using the scripture to rebuke and condemn the sins of the current folks, how is that 'replacing' what He is quoting?  It is still very, very valid -- that is the reason He used it.

But you are correct that He did it in a compassionate and kind way.  He was NOT saying that it was a new time and bad behavior was now 'acceptable'.

His correction was certainly done in a kind and humble way, but by no means was He okaying the sin.

@wallstreetcappers

 I would suggest that maybe 5% of Christians follow the NT teachings, most Christians are nose followers who fall into simple mindsets and are not motivated to evolve into a higher law and a selfless way of living. It is thought that Christ and his disciples were living a quasi law of consecration where nobody had possessions and everyone functioned as a single unit that the needs of all were serviced by all and nobody cared about what they had or what they owned, how much money they had or where they were going to be from day to day. You can follow the OT old law and hide behind the archaic and barbaric teaching structure, I will see the OT for the purpose it served and try to live the NEW law personally and that is more about society and others and less about my personal narrow way of thinking.

There are very, very many sects that nearly totally follow the New Testament exclusively.  They rarely preach from the Old Testament or refer to it.  

Now you can argue that they do not follow the New Testament correctly and do it with the correct attitude.

They may not fully see the New Testament as 'completing' the Old Testament as much as 'replacing' it.  So, do not properly use the attitude and kindness that Jesus promoted and demonstrated to use.

But that is found in any worldview, period.  The radical portion will always want their views 'properly' enforced.  That should not be the case.

@wallstreetcappers

 You can follow the OT old law and hide behind the archaic and barbaric teaching structure, I will see the OT for the purpose it served and try to live the NEW law personally and that is more about society and others and less about my personal narrow way of thinking.

Correct.  Like I mentioned above:  you cannot totally ignore the Old Testament.  That is where the guidance for behavior and morality was set forth.  

So, a Christian in society has to acknowledge what is morally correct for people as a whole.  But now people do not know how to 'properly' use the New Testament attributes and methods to promote or enforce that behavior.  But all sets should realize that it is best.

Now, this is NOT done at homes and NOT done in churches.  It is all being done at schools and in the various forms of Media.  So, now the hands-off approach has backfired.

@Raiders22

 The point where we disagree and part ways is where your last paragraph that you take a position of calling out a sin and judging in the process. I am saying Christ said that we are NOT to judge and that is the end of it right there...you seem unwilling or unable to grasp that concept. That is the position of most "Christians" and especially the ultra conservative ones...where it is your business of the sin of others and the actions of others that you have the responsibility to insert your Christianity into society and that others should follow those religious concepts and that they have value in society. I do not feel that way I am not going to judge someone who is different than me who acts different than me who believes different than me and who lives a different life than me. THIS is the largest flaw and weakness in "Christianity" and where those claiming to be Christian are for sure NOT Christian at all. 

Christ taught that it is not our place to judge it is our place to accept, love, forgive, tolerate, uplift and serve. There is only one judge and that is not a single person living on the earth right now...that is if you actually follow his teachings anyway and I dont think you do in the way he asked and described and most Christians do not at all follow the most DIFFICULT concepts and principals. The hardest thing is to accept and love and serve and NOT judge, nobody does that because it means you have to HAVE ego and not think of self...nobody does that.

I had about a ten year block of time where I spent a TON of time with people from India and China because the schools we chose were diverse and I got to meet MANY people who were not Christian and whos belief system I had ZERO understanding of, they are very very very different and foreign to Christianity. I did hundreds of hours of listening and discussing their perspectives and few hours discussing mine, I did not instruct or preach or try and persuade or convert and in fact I did the opposite I learned more about those beliefs and in the process I learned that most religions are the same just with different designs and concepts but the underlying precepts and principals are the same. The pure ideology of most religions, the elevation perspective of most religions and beliefs are identical and the point is that crap like that project 2025 and most Christians forceful intolerant ways of existing in society are COMPLETELY against the concepts of the faith they claim to follow. They do not follow the most important principals the ones which require the most commitment and those with the highest sacrifice. 

@Raiders22

 In fact, isn't Milwaukee an Indian name?

@wallstreetcappers

 The point where we disagree and part ways is where your last paragraph that you take a position of calling out a sin and judging in the process. I am saying Christ said that we are NOT to judge and that is the end of it right there...you seem unwilling or unable to grasp that concept.

I fully explained this in detail above.  You are obligated to do it, BUT with the correct attitude, etc.  Wrong is wrong and should not be 'allowed' nor 'promoted'.  He demonstrated this many times.

There are writings by scholars that detail this.

@wallstreetcappers

 Christ taught that it is not our place to judge it is our place to accept, love, forgive, tolerate, uplift and serve. There is only one judge and that is not a single person living on the earth right now...that is if you actually follow his teachings anyway and I dont think you do in the way he asked and described and most Christians do not at all follow the most DIFFICULT concepts and principals. The hardest thing is to accept and love and serve and NOT judge, nobody does that because it means you have to HAVE ego and not think of self...nobody does that.

Yes, and as I mentioned above he also respected the current law(s) of society.  There is still a need to enforce rules in society -- so by definition those folks have to be judged.

Certainly, as you raise kids you teach them good behavior.  You do this by 'judging' what they do as good or bad.  Then you 'correct' the bad behavior in a kind, and compassionate way.  

The same has to be done in a society. 

@wallstreetcappers

 I had about a ten year block of time where I spent a TON of time with people from India and China because the schools we chose were diverse and I got to meet MANY people who were not Christian and whos belief system I had ZERO understanding of, they are very very very different and foreign to Christianity. I did hundreds of hours of listening and discussing their perspectives and few hours discussing mine, I did not instruct or preach or try and persuade or convert and in fact I did the opposite I learned more about those beliefs and in the process I learned that most religions are the same just with different designs and concepts but the underlying precepts and principals are the same. The pure ideology of most religions, the elevation perspective of most religions and beliefs are identical and the point is that crap like that project 2025 and most Christians forceful intolerant ways of existing in society are COMPLETELY against the concepts of the faith they claim to follow. They do not follow the most important principals the ones which require the most commitment and those with the highest sacrifice. 

Absolutely, there are many, many very good people of non-Christian religions.  In fact, there are very many good atheists for that matter.  But they are superficially the same and fundamentally different -- but that is a different discussion.

But by and large, humans innately realize what is good for rules and guidance in society.  Therefore, simply by definition, it is nearly a binary 'judgement'.  

The teachings to promote 'proper' behavior has to be done with the correct attitude.  The enforcement of 'punishment' has to be done with the correct attitude.

Most understand this.

But even the radical secularists 'enforce' their beliefs in intolerant manners.  You can see this with the cancel culture and demeaning of folks that disagree with their current narratives.  They are extremely intolerant.  

People also are very, very intolerant of hardline Christians saying what they thin is best for the country and folks in general.  For example, your whole stance on their proposals -- even though it is not all Christians promoting them.  But you have quite easily grouped them all together and reduced it down to the one radical group you do not like.

But again, it is far too simplistic to dismiss a worldview or people's ideas just because a radical faction supports it.

Most Radical or hardline Christians and hardline Skeptics agree that stealing is wrong.  Does that mean that stealing is okay.  Of course not.  All reasonable people judge it to be wrong behavior.  It is the correction part and enforcement part that needs fixing.

So, if your country is not going in the direction you think it should and you put out proposals that you would like to see adopted -- that should not mean they are all bad.  Or even that all people that advocate for them are bad.  The country has many, many issues.  Just because you disagree with some of the promoters of the 'fixes' does not mean there are not problems that need fixing.  There is far less pushback nowadays on the radical and intolerant agendas of the Left, for example.  What is the difference -- you simply agree more with one than the other.

@StumpTownStu

Yessir.  But I lost track of what this might have to do with Harris?

Wrong. You were supposed to answer, Why yes, Stu, it is.