Certain outsiders aside, Democrats are really good about getting their shit together behind closed doors.

I don’t believe that many voters like closed door conspiring

I don’t feel I could change the foods I like on a whim, that doesn’t mean there’s a biological component(for some dislikes there is though) to it. My boyfriend is gay and he admits he has no clue if he was born with it or not.

Within the scope of the law, things that are perceived to be choices within one’s control are more likely to be regulated. It’s harder to justify regulating those components of ourselves that we inherit.

I know this isn’t what you’re doing, but I feel some people use this as a justification to push something they know is unproven.

I appreciate the point you’re making, but I’m not entirely sure that on average slight differences indicates much of a biological component. Ie. trans or gay people having slight biochemical differences on average says nothing about any individual trans or gay person. Furthermore, there is very miniscule average difference between cis-AFAB and cis-AMAB brains so much so that I bet it would be impossible to find a sex difference between them for many.

There might be a biological component to sexuality or gender identity, there might not be- it doesn’t really matter. It should be enough to say, I don’t like how I look, I want surgery to correct that.

Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?

Theism is not inherently right wing. I am agnostic, and consider myself fairly right wing

And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero independent verification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

But DO NOT imagine chewing on a towel

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/12/politics/menendez-gold-cash-what-matters/index.html

Yep! There’s a lot of things that make it entirely possible it was an accident. I also want to clarify, I’m not discounting how abusive the government was to him- just saying we really don’t know for sure what happened

You are pointlessly splitting hairs simply to be the smartest guy in the room.

No it’s not, it’s saying that Nazi doesn’t just mean “bad”. There are a lot of ideologies I disagree with, that aren’t Nazis

His mom believed it was an accident, I have no clue just want to clarify it’s not settled

His mom believed it was an accident, I have no clue just want to clarify it’s not settled

That’s rather dismissive.

I don’t mean it that way.

Are you saying that the notion that wealth disparity is bad is just some guy’s opinion,

This is true yes, but back to the original topic

or that you’re not supposed to be able to get rich being a movie star (or a private equity investor, or a hedge fund manager, or a California gold miner)?

This yes. I am saying nobody has any authority to assert what is or isn’t supposed to be highly paid, but it is fair to believe nobody should be highly paid.

Usually when people are vague and terse, I assume they’re losing interest in the conversation. It’s okay to walk away.

I really do genuinely appreciate the consideration, I’m fine right now, but thank you regardless!

Imo, religion having any correlation with being a bit more right wing is a historical coincidence, right wing economics was in the 18th and 19th century often tied to less religious people.

They wave nazi flags, they goosestep like Nazis, they believe in fascism like nazis.

Of course there are still people who believe in Nazi ideology, but if they believe this: “American Nazies want more slaves. Minorities need to have more babies… as long as they stay poor and uneducated.” then they very likely aren’t that

Not sure why you’re defending the honor of Nazis (or maybe you’re defending non-nazi white supremacists

Saying a term is inaccurate isn’t defending them, you know that, and to suggest it is disingenuous.

Eg. I don’t like pedophiles or serial killers, but calling a one the other is simply inaccurate.

The quoted portion, from my perspective added nothing, but I might of misinterpreted it, so please explain

Racists, neo-nazis, white nationalists, it depends what they are. Nazi ideology was not just racism, it was inherently tied to a form of economic corporatism.

I mean, feel free to check my own comments if you want

Its who I thought of, because its (at least for Friedman, not Ayn Rand) who I align with more(somewhat) on the right. I am an agnostic and pretty right-wing(by my own definition)

… Yes for average Americans, yes. Again, I’m talking about FDR and other political leaders