ImageImageImageImageImage

2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath

Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi, NoLayupRule, HerSports85, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23

Oscirus
RealGM
Posts: 13,528
And1: 9,531
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1861 » by Oscirus » Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:36 am

Pointgod wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
Oscirus wrote:I supported biden in both the primaries and the gen cuz I thought he was a fighter but every time he opens his mouth, he reveals himself to be more and more of a bitch that plays identity politics without much substance


I wouldn't expect that agenda to be acted upon out of the gate when the economic situation is grim and they are saving their powder to initiate other expensive programs. It is all well and good to say it is just the banks and they can take the loss in revenues from school debt payments, but it may have a destabilizing effect on the financial system during a depression.

Calling him a bitch for not going after that now is just too easy a target. If they are going to do something about educational debt it was never likely to happen right away. It's a big issue among a whole set of big and even bigger issues. They do have to pick and choose and some favorite agendas are going to be set aside for now.


You know what’s funny? I was ready to agree with Wingo and Ocirus and then I did some digging. And if you actually read the article it’s a lot more complex than “Old Scrooge Biden doesn’t want to cancel student debt.” I’ve noticed that Wingo likes to post headlines out of context to throw shade at any non Bernie acolyte.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/12/23/why-joe-biden-wont-cancel-student-loans/

The “why” behind Biden’s comments today are particularly important. Biden didn’t elaborate on his comments or explain the rationale behind his position. However, reading between the lines, Biden’s comments imply that a president — at least President Biden — can’t or won’t cancel student loans. Most legal scholars support Biden’s position— even if it’s now up for debate — that only Congress, and not the president acting unilaterally, has the power to cancel student loan debt. Why? The U.S. Constitution provides for three separate yet equal branches of government. Congress is the branch of government tasked with the power of federal spending. Since cancelling student loan debt is effectively a form of federal spending, this falls in Congress’s lane, not the president’s.


The U.S. Secretary of Education can cancel student loan debt under the Higher Education Act. Warren and Schumer are right in this regard. For example, the Education Secretary can cancel federal student loan debt due to fraud, school closure or total and permanent disability. However, this is not the same as cancelling approximately $1.5 trillion of federal student loan debt in a single day. The power granted to the Education Secretary is a procedural one and limited to certain egregious situations in which borrowers have been cheated or wronged in some way. This is different than empowering the executive branch with full and complete authority to “spend” $1.5 trillion to cancel student loan debt (no matter how noble the purpose). As a former U.S. senator, Biden knows this too. Biden knows that the executive branch doesn’t have unlimited power. Separation of powers allows the legislative branch to “check” the executive branch, making it unlikely that a president could forgive all student loans at once. Ultimately, Biden may have the legal power to do so, as he intimates. However, Biden seems unwilling — for pragmatic reasons — be entangled in a potential constitutional question. It appears that the president-elect would rather take the traditional route: through Congress, a path he knows all too well.


Either way it’s the right conversation that the Democratic Party should be having but only because the Party has control of 2 of 3 branches of Congress. That’s why IMO the only focus should be on Georgia

All I'll say about that is the only way any left leaning president is gonna get anything done is by challenging their power to see how far they can stretch it. Obvs if such challenges made it to the supreme court, it would be dropped, but still relying on a senate thats pretty much determined to make you a one term president is just asking for trouble. Biden of all people should know this.

But I do agree, it's a non-issue till after the georgia stuff is concluded.
Jimmit79 wrote:At this point I want RJ to get paid
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,164
And1: 62,256
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1862 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Dec 25, 2020 7:57 am

Pointgod wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
Oscirus wrote:I supported biden in both the primaries and the gen cuz I thought he was a fighter but every time he opens his mouth, he reveals himself to be more and more of a bitch that plays identity politics without much substance


I wouldn't expect that agenda to be acted upon out of the gate when the economic situation is grim and they are saving their powder to initiate other expensive programs. It is all well and good to say it is just the banks and they can take the loss in revenues from school debt payments, but it may have a destabilizing effect on the financial system during a depression.

Calling him a bitch for not going after that now is just too easy a target. If they are going to do something about educational debt it was never likely to happen right away. It's a big issue among a whole set of big and even bigger issues. They do have to pick and choose and some favorite agendas are going to be set aside for now.


You know what’s funny? I was ready to agree with Wingo and Ocirus and then I did some digging. And if you actually read the article it’s a lot more complex than “Old Scrooge Biden doesn’t want to cancel student debt.” I’ve noticed that Wingo likes to post headlines out of context to throw shade at any non Bernie acolyte.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/12/23/why-joe-biden-wont-cancel-student-loans/

The “why” behind Biden’s comments today are particularly important. Biden didn’t elaborate on his comments or explain the rationale behind his position. However, reading between the lines, Biden’s comments imply that a president — at least President Biden — can’t or won’t cancel student loans. Most legal scholars support Biden’s position— even if it’s now up for debate — that only Congress, and not the president acting unilaterally, has the power to cancel student loan debt. Why? The U.S. Constitution provides for three separate yet equal branches of government. Congress is the branch of government tasked with the power of federal spending. Since cancelling student loan debt is effectively a form of federal spending, this falls in Congress’s lane, not the president’s.


The U.S. Secretary of Education can cancel student loan debt under the Higher Education Act. Warren and Schumer are right in this regard. For example, the Education Secretary can cancel federal student loan debt due to fraud, school closure or total and permanent disability. However, this is not the same as cancelling approximately $1.5 trillion of federal student loan debt in a single day. The power granted to the Education Secretary is a procedural one and limited to certain egregious situations in which borrowers have been cheated or wronged in some way. This is different than empowering the executive branch with full and complete authority to “spend” $1.5 trillion to cancel student loan debt (no matter how noble the purpose). As a former U.S. senator, Biden knows this too. Biden knows that the executive branch doesn’t have unlimited power. Separation of powers allows the legislative branch to “check” the executive branch, making it unlikely that a president could forgive all student loans at once. Ultimately, Biden may have the legal power to do so, as he intimates. However, Biden seems unwilling — for pragmatic reasons — be entangled in a potential constitutional question. It appears that the president-elect would rather take the traditional route: through Congress, a path he knows all too well.


Either way it’s the right conversation that the Democratic Party should be having but only because the Party has control of 2 of 3 branches of Congress. That’s why IMO the only focus should be on Georgia


1. Trump already did with respect to the veterans in 2019

https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-loans

The most recent high-profile case of a president forgiving student loans happened in 2019, when President Donald Trump used a memorandum to discharge the student loan debt of all totally and permanently disabled military veterans who had not yet taken advantage of an existing program through the Department of Education.(4) (This basically cut out the red tape that was required in the past to get the loans discharged.)

(4) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-discharging-federal-student-loan-debt-totally-permanently-disabled-veterans/


2. Just because Biden says he doesn't have the power doesn't mean that he doesn't have the power. This is just what I've been telling you about Biden all along. He's not with us. Plausible deniability when it comes to helping working middle class folks. He's the same SOB who called for cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Did we have to do them? No. Biden was wrong then and he's wrong again now. He's Republican lite, just like Obama. Biden doesn't have the balls to flex his muscles like that. And who is going to challenge him on this if he did? I'd like to see that legal battle take place over this issue. Moreover, Elizabeth Warren put together a team from Harvard Law School to research the issue and she believes that the President DOES have the power of the EO to accomplish this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-debt-without-congress-experts-weigh-in.html

During the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren vowed to forgive student loans in the first days of her administration, including with her announcement an analysis written by three legal experts, based at the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard Law School, who described such a move as “lawful and permissible.”


https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ltr%20to%20Warren%20re%20admin%20debt%20cancellation.pdf

But you knew all this, right? :lol: Leave the legal stuff to the lawyers, next time.
Free Palestine
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,164
And1: 62,256
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1863 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:20 am

Here's another piece of shyt elitist Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner (Dem., VI) trashing stimulus checks on Fox News with Cavuto. I guess Pointgod likes this too.

Free Palestine
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,164
And1: 62,256
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1864 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:20 am

Onetime aide and speechwriter Raymond Moley on FDR

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/04/how-the-deal-went-down

But it was a different talent that enabled Roosevelt to accomplish what he did as Chief Executive—to remain in office for more than twelve years and to preside over the repurposing of government, the salvation of capitalism, and the destruction of fascism. He loved politics. “His mental processes,” as Moley put it, “were essentially political.” This understates the case a little. Roosevelt wasn’t merely a political pragmatist, someone who is less interested in the ideological provenance of a policy than in its effectiveness—although he was. He was creative. He saw that government was being underutilized, and he tried out ideas that no President had thought to try out before and found ways to put them into practice. He was an experimentalist.

The Constitution “is an experiment, as all life is an experiment,” Holmes wrote in a famous dissent. That is what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address: democracy is an experiment the goal of which is to keep the experiment going. The purpose of democracy is to enable people to live democratically. That’s it. Democracy is not a means to something else; there is no higher good that we’re trying as a society to attain. When we compromise with democracy in order to achieve some other purpose, even when the purpose is to defend democracy, then we are in danger of losing it.

Katznelson thinks that this is exactly the significance of the New Deal. In a period of depression and totalitarianism, the New Deal proved that liberal democracy still worked. Writers like Rizzi and Burnham believed, and writers like Orwell feared, that, in a world of high-tech economies and mass publics, elected officials who had no technical expertise and little control over the means of production, distribution, and communication were incapable of governing a modern state. Market economies and representative governments looked like artifacts of the nineteenth century. In Germany, the Weimar Republic had failed. In France, the Third Republic was dying. Italy, Spain, and Japan were fascistic. Didn’t the Crash and the Great Depression, and the frighteningly successful job that Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler were doing to advance the industrial and military strength of their countries, prove that capitalism and democracy were inefficient, uncoördinated, and obsolete, and that something different—bureaucratic collectivism, the managerial state, or simply enlightened dictatorship—was not only inevitable but possibly morally necessary?

The promise of Roosevelt was the promise that, despite what looked like the tide of history, democracy would survive. This was not a promise only to Americans. It was read as a promise to the world. “His impulse,” Winston Churchill wrote during Roosevelt’s first year in office, “is one which makes toward the fuller life of the masses of the people in every land, and which, as it glows the brighter, may well eclipse both the lurid flames of German Nordic self-assertion and the baleful unnatural lights which are diffused from Soviet Russia.”
Free Palestine
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,164
And1: 62,256
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1865 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:26 pm

It got awful quiet in here.
Free Palestine
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,164
And1: 62,256
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1866 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:46 pm

Jesus would've been a Bernie Bro.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/opinion/jesus-christ-christmas-incarnation.html

The Forgotten Radicalism of Jesus Christ
First-century Christians weren’t prepared for what a truly inclusive figure he was, and what was true then is still true today.

By Peter Wehner
Contributing Opinion Writer
Dec. 24, 2020

“Get used to different.”

That line comes from a marvelous new TV series on Jesus’ life, “The Chosen,” in which Jesus, played by Jonathan Roumie, invites Matthew to become one of his disciples. Simon Peter, already a disciple, registers his fierce objection. Matthew is a tax collector, who were viewed as tools of Roman authorities, often dishonest and abusive. They were therefore treated as traitors and outcasts by other Jews.

“I don’t get it,” Simon Peter says to Jesus about his decision to invite Matthew, to which Jesus responds, “You didn’t get it when I chose you, either.”

“But this is different,” Simon Peter answers. “I’m not a tax collector.” At which point Jesus let’s Simon Peter know things aren’t going to be quite what his followers expected.

First-century Christians weren’t prepared for what a truly radical and radically inclusive figure Jesus was, and neither are today’s Christians. We want to tame and domesticate who he was, but Jesus’ life and ministry don’t really allow for it. He shattered barrier after barrier.

One example is Jesus’ encounter, in the fourth chapter of the gospel of John, with the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus and the woman talked about Jesus being the Messiah, why he was even deigning to talk with her, and the unnamed woman’s past and present, which she initially sought to hide from Jesus. (It included her five previous husbands, according to the account in John, and the fact that “the one whom you now have is not your husband.”) Yet not a word of condemnation passed the lips of Jesus; the woman felt heard, understood, cared for. Jesus treated her, in the words of one commentator, “with a magnetic dignity and respect.”

The encounter with Jesus transformed her life; after it the woman at the well became “the first woman preacher in Christian history,” proclaiming Jesus to be the savior of the world to her community, according to the New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey.

This story is a striking example of Jesus’ rejection of conventional religious and cultural thinking — in this case because Jesus, a man, was talking earnestly to a woman in a world in which women were often demeaned and treated as second-class citizens; and because Jesus, a Jew, was talking to a Samaritan, who were despised by the Jews for reasons going back centuries. According to Professor Bailey, “A Samaritan woman and her community are sought out and welcomed by Jesus. In the process, ancient racial, theological and historical barriers are breached. His message and his community are for all.”

This happened time and again with Jesus. He touched lepers and healed a woman who had a constant flow of menstrual blood, both of whom were considered impure; forgave a woman “who lived a sinful life” and told her to “go in peace,” healed a paralytic and a blind man, people thought to be worthless and useless. And as Jesus was being crucified, he told the penitent thief on the cross next to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.”

Jesus was repeatedly attacked for hanging out with the wrong crowd and recruited his disciples from the lower rungs of society.

And Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, a story about a man who helps a wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, made the hero of the story not an influential priest, not a person of social rank or privilege but a hated foreigner.

For Christians, the incarnation is a story of God, in the person of Jesus, participating in the human drama. And in that drama Jesus was most drawn to the forsaken and despised, the marginalized, those who had stumbled and fallen. He was beloved by them, even as he was targeted and eventually killed by the politically and religiously powerful, who viewed Jesus as a grave threat to their dominance.

Over the course of my faith journey, I have wondered: Why was a hallmark of Jesus’s ministry intimacy with and the inclusion of the unwanted and the outcast, men and women living in the shadow of society, more likely to be dismissed than noticed, more likely to be mocked than revered?

Part of the explanation surely has to do with the belief in the imago Dei, that Jesus sees indelible dignity and inestimable worth in every person, even “the least of these.” If no one else would esteem them, Jesus would.

Among the people who best articulated this ethic was Abraham Lincoln, who in a 1858 speech in Lewiston, Ill., in which he explained the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence, said, “Nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

Yet another reason for Jesus’ connection with outcasts undoubtedly had to do with his compassion and empathy, his desire to relieve their pain and lift the soul-crushing shame that accompanies being a social pariah and an untouchable.

But that is hardly the only reason. Jesus modeled inclusion and solidarity with the “unclean” and marginalized not only for their sake but for the sake of the powerful and the privileged and for the good of the whole.

Jesus must have understood that we human beings battle with exclusion, self-righteousness and arrogance, and have a quick trigger finger when it comes to judging others. Jesus knew how easily we could fall into the trap of turning “the other” — those of other races, ethnicities, classes, genders and nations — into enemies. We place loyalty to the tribe over compassion and human connection. We view differences as threatening; the result is we become isolated, rigid in our thinking, harsh and unforgiving.

Jesus clearly believed that outcasts had a lot to teach the privileged and the powerful, including the virtues of humility and the vice of supreme certitude. Rather than seeing God exclusively as a moral taskmaster, Jesus understood that the weak and dispossessed often experience God in a different way — as a dispenser of grace, a source of comfort, a redeemer. They see the world, and God, through a different prism than do the powerful and the proud. The lowly in the world offer a corrective to the spiritual astigmatisms that develop among the rest of us.

It’s easy for us to look back 20 centuries and see how religious authorities were too severe and unforgiving in how they treated the outcasts of their time. The wisest question those of us who are Christians could ask ourselves isn’t why we are so much more humane and enlightened than they were; rather, it is to ask ourselves who the modern outcasts are and whether we’re mistreating them. Who are the tax collectors of our era, the people we despise but whom Jesus would welcome, those around whom are we determined to build a “dividing wall of hostility,” to use the imagery of the Apostle Paul?

“How Christians, including me, responded to the AIDS crisis in the ’80s haunts me,” my longtime friend Scott Dudley, senior pastor of Bellevue Presbyterian Church in Bellevue, Wash., recently told me. “Had we, like the first Christians, cared first and cared most for modern day ‘plague’ victims, I think we’d be in a whole different conversation with the L.G.B.T.Q. community. We may still have significant differences of opinion. However, I believe the dialogue would be one of more mutual respect, and I believe the L.G.B.T.Q. community would feel less afraid of the wounds Christians can inflict.” But even if the conversation were not different, as Scott knows, caring first and caring most for those victims of a plague would have been the right thing to do.

No society and no religious faith can live without moral rules. Jesus wasn’t an antinomian, one who believes that Christians, because they are saved by grace, are not bound to religious laws. But he understood that what ultimately changes people’s lives are relationships rather than rule books, mercy rather than moral demands.

Jesus’ teachings are so challenging, so distinct from normal human reactions and behaviors, that we constantly have to renew our commitment to them. Every generation of Christians need to think through how his example applies to the times in which they live. We need our sensibilities to align more with his. Otherwise, we drift into self-righteousness and legalism, even to the point that we corrupt the very institution, the church, which was created to worship him and to love others.

The lesson from Jesus’ life and ministry is that understanding people’s stories and struggles requires much more time and effort than condemning them, but it is vastly more rewarding. And the lesson of Christmas and the incarnation, at least for those of us of the Christian faith, is that all of us were once outcasts, broken yet loved, and worth reaching out to and redeeming.

If God did that for us, why do we find it so hard to do it for each other?
Free Palestine
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 71,855
And1: 69,930
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Brunsonia

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1867 » by Clyde_Style » Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:53 pm

Read on Twitter
Oscirus
RealGM
Posts: 13,528
And1: 9,531
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1868 » by Oscirus » Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:57 am

Jill would get it
Jimmit79 wrote:At this point I want RJ to get paid
User avatar
dakomish23
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 58,749
And1: 48,719
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1869 » by dakomish23 » Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:44 am

All the lemmings are excited that they have lemming Congress folks who will try to subvert democracy.

This country will never be United again. This administration made sure of that. There was always a divide, but his grift of playing on their desperation to own the libs has left so many of them in full blown denial of reality.

It’s done. You had a good run, USA.
Jimmit79 wrote:Yea RJ played well he was definitely the x factor


#FreeJimmit
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 31,762
And1: 20,529
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1870 » by stuporman » Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:52 am

HarthorneWingo wrote:Jesus would've been a Bernie Bro.
If God did that for us, why do we find it so hard to do it for each other?


...centrists are like b-b-b-but the rules, we can't help people because the rules make it hard so why even try.

The right, especially the religious right would crucify Jesus all over again thinking they were defending God because he was brown, poor and not bowing to their rules and interpretations of scripture then try to claim they have God's mercy and blessing after they did it.
If you'd rather see your team fail so you can be right
...you are a fan of your opinion not the team.
Image?
Knowledge is just information stuffed into a mental bag
Wisdom is knowing what to pull out of the bag to do the job
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 71,855
And1: 69,930
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Brunsonia

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1871 » by Clyde_Style » Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:45 am

Read on Twitter


If anyone knows what degree of trouble Trump is in, it would be Michael Cohen

President Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, says he is "not interested" in a presidential pardon — and claims Mr. Trump is going to face legal issues of his own soon after leaving the White House.

"It has to do with his finances, it has to do with his tax returns, it has to do with his properties, it has to do with the personal financial statements that he had made and provided in order to obtain loans," Cohen said on CBSN Thursday.


Cohen said he had been questioned by the state attorney general's team and the district attorney's office and claimed investigators are "well-prepared" with their evidence to "move relatively quickly" in their probes.

"I do believe that there is a mounting amount of evidence that they will be prosecuting upon," Cohen said. "Some of it of course is civil, and other parts of it are criminal."
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 80,809
And1: 94,164
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: Villanovknicks

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1872 » by thebuzzardman » Sat Dec 26, 2020 4:47 am

HarthorneWingo wrote:Jesus would've been a Bernie Bro.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/opinion/jesus-christ-christmas-incarnation.html

The Forgotten Radicalism of Jesus Christ
First-century Christians weren’t prepared for what a truly inclusive figure he was, and what was true then is still true today.

By Peter Wehner
Contributing Opinion Writer
Dec. 24, 2020

“Get used to different.”

That line comes from a marvelous new TV series on Jesus’ life, “The Chosen,” in which Jesus, played by Jonathan Roumie, invites Matthew to become one of his disciples. Simon Peter, already a disciple, registers his fierce objection. Matthew is a tax collector, who were viewed as tools of Roman authorities, often dishonest and abusive. They were therefore treated as traitors and outcasts by other Jews.

“I don’t get it,” Simon Peter says to Jesus about his decision to invite Matthew, to which Jesus responds, “You didn’t get it when I chose you, either.”

“But this is different,” Simon Peter answers. “I’m not a tax collector.” At which point Jesus let’s Simon Peter know things aren’t going to be quite what his followers expected.

First-century Christians weren’t prepared for what a truly radical and radically inclusive figure Jesus was, and neither are today’s Christians. We want to tame and domesticate who he was, but Jesus’ life and ministry don’t really allow for it. He shattered barrier after barrier.

One example is Jesus’ encounter, in the fourth chapter of the gospel of John, with the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus and the woman talked about Jesus being the Messiah, why he was even deigning to talk with her, and the unnamed woman’s past and present, which she initially sought to hide from Jesus. (It included her five previous husbands, according to the account in John, and the fact that “the one whom you now have is not your husband.”) Yet not a word of condemnation passed the lips of Jesus; the woman felt heard, understood, cared for. Jesus treated her, in the words of one commentator, “with a magnetic dignity and respect.”

The encounter with Jesus transformed her life; after it the woman at the well became “the first woman preacher in Christian history,” proclaiming Jesus to be the savior of the world to her community, according to the New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey.

This story is a striking example of Jesus’ rejection of conventional religious and cultural thinking — in this case because Jesus, a man, was talking earnestly to a woman in a world in which women were often demeaned and treated as second-class citizens; and because Jesus, a Jew, was talking to a Samaritan, who were despised by the Jews for reasons going back centuries. According to Professor Bailey, “A Samaritan woman and her community are sought out and welcomed by Jesus. In the process, ancient racial, theological and historical barriers are breached. His message and his community are for all.”

This happened time and again with Jesus. He touched lepers and healed a woman who had a constant flow of menstrual blood, both of whom were considered impure; forgave a woman “who lived a sinful life” and told her to “go in peace,” healed a paralytic and a blind man, people thought to be worthless and useless. And as Jesus was being crucified, he told the penitent thief on the cross next to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.”

Jesus was repeatedly attacked for hanging out with the wrong crowd and recruited his disciples from the lower rungs of society.

And Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, a story about a man who helps a wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, made the hero of the story not an influential priest, not a person of social rank or privilege but a hated foreigner.

For Christians, the incarnation is a story of God, in the person of Jesus, participating in the human drama. And in that drama Jesus was most drawn to the forsaken and despised, the marginalized, those who had stumbled and fallen. He was beloved by them, even as he was targeted and eventually killed by the politically and religiously powerful, who viewed Jesus as a grave threat to their dominance.

Over the course of my faith journey, I have wondered: Why was a hallmark of Jesus’s ministry intimacy with and the inclusion of the unwanted and the outcast, men and women living in the shadow of society, more likely to be dismissed than noticed, more likely to be mocked than revered?

Part of the explanation surely has to do with the belief in the imago Dei, that Jesus sees indelible dignity and inestimable worth in every person, even “the least of these.” If no one else would esteem them, Jesus would.

Among the people who best articulated this ethic was Abraham Lincoln, who in a 1858 speech in Lewiston, Ill., in which he explained the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence, said, “Nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

Yet another reason for Jesus’ connection with outcasts undoubtedly had to do with his compassion and empathy, his desire to relieve their pain and lift the soul-crushing shame that accompanies being a social pariah and an untouchable.

But that is hardly the only reason. Jesus modeled inclusion and solidarity with the “unclean” and marginalized not only for their sake but for the sake of the powerful and the privileged and for the good of the whole.

Jesus must have understood that we human beings battle with exclusion, self-righteousness and arrogance, and have a quick trigger finger when it comes to judging others. Jesus knew how easily we could fall into the trap of turning “the other” — those of other races, ethnicities, classes, genders and nations — into enemies. We place loyalty to the tribe over compassion and human connection. We view differences as threatening; the result is we become isolated, rigid in our thinking, harsh and unforgiving.

Jesus clearly believed that outcasts had a lot to teach the privileged and the powerful, including the virtues of humility and the vice of supreme certitude. Rather than seeing God exclusively as a moral taskmaster, Jesus understood that the weak and dispossessed often experience God in a different way — as a dispenser of grace, a source of comfort, a redeemer. They see the world, and God, through a different prism than do the powerful and the proud. The lowly in the world offer a corrective to the spiritual astigmatisms that develop among the rest of us.

It’s easy for us to look back 20 centuries and see how religious authorities were too severe and unforgiving in how they treated the outcasts of their time. The wisest question those of us who are Christians could ask ourselves isn’t why we are so much more humane and enlightened than they were; rather, it is to ask ourselves who the modern outcasts are and whether we’re mistreating them. Who are the tax collectors of our era, the people we despise but whom Jesus would welcome, those around whom are we determined to build a “dividing wall of hostility,” to use the imagery of the Apostle Paul?

“How Christians, including me, responded to the AIDS crisis in the ’80s haunts me,” my longtime friend Scott Dudley, senior pastor of Bellevue Presbyterian Church in Bellevue, Wash., recently told me. “Had we, like the first Christians, cared first and cared most for modern day ‘plague’ victims, I think we’d be in a whole different conversation with the L.G.B.T.Q. community. We may still have significant differences of opinion. However, I believe the dialogue would be one of more mutual respect, and I believe the L.G.B.T.Q. community would feel less afraid of the wounds Christians can inflict.” But even if the conversation were not different, as Scott knows, caring first and caring most for those victims of a plague would have been the right thing to do.

No society and no religious faith can live without moral rules. Jesus wasn’t an antinomian, one who believes that Christians, because they are saved by grace, are not bound to religious laws. But he understood that what ultimately changes people’s lives are relationships rather than rule books, mercy rather than moral demands.

Jesus’ teachings are so challenging, so distinct from normal human reactions and behaviors, that we constantly have to renew our commitment to them. Every generation of Christians need to think through how his example applies to the times in which they live. We need our sensibilities to align more with his. Otherwise, we drift into self-righteousness and legalism, even to the point that we corrupt the very institution, the church, which was created to worship him and to love others.

The lesson from Jesus’ life and ministry is that understanding people’s stories and struggles requires much more time and effort than condemning them, but it is vastly more rewarding. And the lesson of Christmas and the incarnation, at least for those of us of the Christian faith, is that all of us were once outcasts, broken yet loved, and worth reaching out to and redeeming.

If God did that for us, why do we find it so hard to do it for each other?


Jesus died for his own sins, not mine
Image
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 80,809
And1: 94,164
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: Villanovknicks

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1873 » by thebuzzardman » Sat Dec 26, 2020 4:48 am

dakomish23 wrote:All the lemmings are excited that they have lemming Congress folks who will try to subvert democracy.

This country will never be United again. This administration made sure of that. There was always a divide, but his grift of playing on their desperation to own the libs has left so many of them in full blown denial of reality.

It’s done. You had a good run, USA.


I like it. F*ck this country and most of the people in it. Happy holidays! :D
Image
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 23,927
And1: 24,289
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1874 » by Pointgod » Sat Dec 26, 2020 3:37 pm

Oscirus wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
I wouldn't expect that agenda to be acted upon out of the gate when the economic situation is grim and they are saving their powder to initiate other expensive programs. It is all well and good to say it is just the banks and they can take the loss in revenues from school debt payments, but it may have a destabilizing effect on the financial system during a depression.

Calling him a bitch for not going after that now is just too easy a target. If they are going to do something about educational debt it was never likely to happen right away. It's a big issue among a whole set of big and even bigger issues. They do have to pick and choose and some favorite agendas are going to be set aside for now.


You know what’s funny? I was ready to agree with Wingo and Ocirus and then I did some digging. And if you actually read the article it’s a lot more complex than “Old Scrooge Biden doesn’t want to cancel student debt.” I’ve noticed that Wingo likes to post headlines out of context to throw shade at any non Bernie acolyte.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/12/23/why-joe-biden-wont-cancel-student-loans/

The “why” behind Biden’s comments today are particularly important. Biden didn’t elaborate on his comments or explain the rationale behind his position. However, reading between the lines, Biden’s comments imply that a president — at least President Biden — can’t or won’t cancel student loans. Most legal scholars support Biden’s position— even if it’s now up for debate — that only Congress, and not the president acting unilaterally, has the power to cancel student loan debt. Why? The U.S. Constitution provides for three separate yet equal branches of government. Congress is the branch of government tasked with the power of federal spending. Since cancelling student loan debt is effectively a form of federal spending, this falls in Congress’s lane, not the president’s.


The U.S. Secretary of Education can cancel student loan debt under the Higher Education Act. Warren and Schumer are right in this regard. For example, the Education Secretary can cancel federal student loan debt due to fraud, school closure or total and permanent disability. However, this is not the same as cancelling approximately $1.5 trillion of federal student loan debt in a single day. The power granted to the Education Secretary is a procedural one and limited to certain egregious situations in which borrowers have been cheated or wronged in some way. This is different than empowering the executive branch with full and complete authority to “spend” $1.5 trillion to cancel student loan debt (no matter how noble the purpose). As a former U.S. senator, Biden knows this too. Biden knows that the executive branch doesn’t have unlimited power. Separation of powers allows the legislative branch to “check” the executive branch, making it unlikely that a president could forgive all student loans at once. Ultimately, Biden may have the legal power to do so, as he intimates. However, Biden seems unwilling — for pragmatic reasons — be entangled in a potential constitutional question. It appears that the president-elect would rather take the traditional route: through Congress, a path he knows all too well.


Either way it’s the right conversation that the Democratic Party should be having but only because the Party has control of 2 of 3 branches of Congress. That’s why IMO the only focus should be on Georgia

All I'll say about that is the only way any left leaning president is gonna get anything done is by challenging their power to see how far they can stretch it. Obvs if such challenges made it to the supreme court, it would be dropped, but still relying on a senate thats pretty much determined to make you a one term president is just asking for trouble. Biden of all people should know this.

But I do agree, it's a non-issue till after the georgia stuff is concluded.


I agree with you but I don’t see the point in getting upset with Biden for being something he’s not. He’s an institutionalist, he’s not going to run wild with executive orders, unless he has to. Let’s see the results of Georgia first. If Dems can take control of the Senate then all this hang wringing and circular firing squad is pointless. If not then give Biden time to see if he can get bipartisan appeals (I think it will certainly fail) before going wild on executive orders. I generally think that if Mitch retains control of the Senate he needs to push for as much as he can through executive order instead of punting to 2022. Voters don’t actually pay attention to any of this **** and it’s better to be caught trying to do something for voters and lose in the Supreme Court vs doing nothing
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 80,809
And1: 94,164
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: Villanovknicks

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1875 » by thebuzzardman » Sat Dec 26, 2020 3:55 pm

So, false flag operation in Nashville or lunatic loner?

Could be either.
Image
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 71,855
And1: 69,930
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Brunsonia

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1876 » by Clyde_Style » Sat Dec 26, 2020 4:23 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:So, false flag operation in Nashville or lunatic loner?

Could be either.


Did you see the security cam that captured the warning audio?

One thing that feels sketchy to me is reports that authorities think it was an amateur job. That feels like a presumptuous thing for any investigator to leak or say to a reporter if that account is true. For one, it doesn't seem all that amateur to me. There was some real specificity to how it was done and the clear intent to not kill bystanders. I don't have any ideas about the agenda or whom it could be, but whomever it was it did not strike me as a mickey mouse operation.

Even if it was a loner, why filter the perception of the investigation prematurely? Something feels off about that
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 31,762
And1: 20,529
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1877 » by stuporman » Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:00 pm

The DCCC actively and openly fights against progressive candidates even endorsing and funding republicans running against them and now the Biden is filling his administration with corporatist centrists and republicans while already backing away from the progressive policies even before he gets in that he said he supported before the election..... yup, garbage azz establishment dems again will reject the widely popular with both party voter policies and will do nothing to help people while shrugging it's not their fault, it's the process that prevents them.

So disgusting and corrupt....and the centrist apologists on this forum will defend them. :nonono:
If you'd rather see your team fail so you can be right
...you are a fan of your opinion not the team.
Image?
Knowledge is just information stuffed into a mental bag
Wisdom is knowing what to pull out of the bag to do the job
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 71,855
And1: 69,930
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Brunsonia

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1878 » by Clyde_Style » Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:14 pm

stuporman wrote:The DCCC actively and openly fights against progressive candidates even endorsing and funding republicans running against them and now the Biden is filling his administration with corporatist centrists and republicans while already backing away from the progressive policies even before he gets in that he said he supported before the election..... yup, garbage azz establishment dems again will reject the widely popular with both party voter policies and will do nothing to help people while shrugging it's not their fault, it's the process that prevents them.

So disgusting and corrupt....and the centrist apologists on this forum will defend them. :nonono:


You're boring us
User avatar
ibraheim718
RealGM
Posts: 41,720
And1: 15,269
Joined: Jul 01, 2010

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1879 » by ibraheim718 » Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:23 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:So, false flag operation in Nashville or lunatic loner?

Could be either.


It's puzzling no doubt. There are still 4 weeks left in Trump's presidency. If we see a few more of these types of bombings over that time it would be easier for me to lean false flag so Trump could impose martial law. If not I think domestic actors targeting law enforcement. It's probably the latter. They clearly didn't want to harm civilians which in my eyes eliminates radical terrorists.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,164
And1: 62,256
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath 

Post#1880 » by HarthorneWingo » Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:26 pm

Clyde_Style wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:So, false flag operation in Nashville or lunatic loner?

Could be either.


Did you see the security cam that captured the warning audio?

One thing that feels sketchy to me is reports that authorities think it was an amateur job. That feels like a presumptuous thing for any investigator to leak or say to a reporter if that account is true. For one, it doesn't seem all that amateur to me. There was some real specificity to how it was done and the clear intent to not kill bystanders. I don't have any ideas about the agenda or whom it could be, but whomever it was it did not strike me as a mickey mouse operation.

Even if it was a loner, why filter the perception of the investigation prematurely? Something feels off about that


I’ve read the opposite. There’s no way this could’ve been an amateur given the magnitude of the blast. In fact, those with knowledge of these types of attacks say that it’s unusual for a such an explosive device to get made without law enforcement’s knowledge.
Free Palestine

Return to New York Knicks