It was the first time any modern president has admitted that the elites of the party are the millionaires (and billionaires) who fund it, which gives them extraordinary political power — perhaps enough to push Biden out of the race.

In truth, the Democratic Party is little more than a national fundraising machine, as is the GOP.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

Political parties are poison to democracy… and our two-party system is nothing more or less than cancer of democracy.

And why do any of these problems exist at all? Capitalism, and the millionaires and billionaires that such a system enables.

Summary: Republicans are once again attempting to disenfranchise voters in a Democratic county.

Republicans. When they can’t win on their own merits, they dismantle democracy.

The “media” is largely owned by right wing billionaires. They don’t care if he’s fit, they see him as a means to their ends.

Coalitions are literally the primary way the rest of the world avoids devolving into the US’s corrupt two-party system. It’s proven quite effective.

If that could be combined with RCV in more countries (or US states), then it could far more strongly prevent the consolidation of political parties and return more power to the people themselves.

I had to read that a couple of times before I understood what you are trying to say. At first glance, it seemed like you were calling democracy itself bourgeois, but I think you meant it as a specific thing that isn’t actual democracy… e.g. it’s an illusion of democracy because capitalism gives the wealthy the ability to steer the whole ship, as it were. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Other than Jefferson Davis, who was let off scott-free.

And that's before we get into Johnson's "I'm the new Confederate President" behavior immediately after the assassination.

A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris... so...

The “good” news is that Piranha Bytes isn’t involved in that one.

I feel like there should be more of a penalty than “we take it away if you get caught”.

I see. I am talking about the conversation as a whole, since I dislike taking verses out of context.

The underlying topic is universal: Righteousness and who gains eternal life at the Resurrection. Jesus teaching is entirely centered around this. So in a way, it’s all universal.

But there’s an extra layer to the entire conversation: acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. So the entire conversation is filled with scathing barbs aimed at Israel, and Nicodemus as a representative of Israel. 18 contains one of these barbs. Does this help?

If it had a 1000R curvature, I’d give it serious consideration for my next monitor. I don’t understand why so many manufacturers keep making monitors that big that don’t have the curvature needed to ensure comfortable viewing and operation from the center.

They’ve been like this for decades.

Why would you think there is any kind of difference between them? All of John 3:1-21 is a single conversation about a single topic.

Is that what I said? No. Is that what the scripture says? Also no.

I don’t understand why you are so hell-bent on trying to misconstrue and reframe everything.

Is that what I said? No. Is that what the scripture says? Also no.

I don’t understand why you are so hell-bent on trying to misconstrue and reframe everything.

Is that what I said? No. Is that what the scripture says? Also no.

I don’t understand why you are so hell-bent on trying to misconstrue and reframe everything.

Sauce: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-ninth-annual-meeting-the-army-the-tennessee-des-moines-iowa

Alright! Now if France and Britain’s new left-of-center leadership can just… PLEASE not fuck it up… there may actually hope for the rest of the planet.

So your entire issue here is that I used the word ‘Christian?’ Would you prefer ‘worshiper of Christ?’

Not exactly. And I'd prefer "follower of Jesus", as that more accurately reflects what Jesus is demanding.

Translation between any two languages is difficult enough, but translating across time and cultures, and two millennia of blood-soaked, monopolistic, political ambition complicates matters further.

Connotative errors are a major problem for all modern religions - and not just Judeo-Christian religions. Even Islam - which insists their scripture be read in it's original language - is subject to severe connotative errors by major groups of adherents.

Going back to your original comment:

I’d like to see you excuse John 3:18. It’s pretty overt that all non-Christians are condemned.

Jesus is talking about Israel... to one of it's leaders. He is telling them that he is right here right now, and it's time for his people to make their choice. "Follow me, and I will take you with me to the next creation. Do not follow me, and this life is all you get."

Now there are two problematic connotations in the scripture you are referencing...

First, Jesus demanding that his people believe in him. Jesus teaches repeatedly about behavior toward others throughout every version of every gospel... and condemns those whose behavior is selfish, harmful, spiteful, etc. "Believe in my reputation" (Koine: "pepisteuken eis to onoma") doesn't mean "worship me, peasants" - it means "if you believe I am who I say I am, you will live according to what I am teaching."

The second connotative problem is the meaning of "condemned". Annotatively, this is an accurate translation, but given that modern Christianity is more Hellenist than Jesus-like, that carries with it the connotation of "tormented in hell for eternity"... which is not even remotely a scriptural concept. Jesus taught that the righteous - those who lived according to his teaching - were not "dead" (which implies permanence) but "asleep". He taught the Resurrection of the Dead... in which the Righteous (both Jew and Gentile) would be granted new, eternal life in a new creation ("a new heaven and earth"), and those judged unrighteous will be... dead. Never to rise again. Erased with cleansing fire, like trash.

In addition to those, there is one additional place we seem to be crossing wires... and that is the intersection of Jesus presence as Messiah and application of long-standing Righteousness doctrine.

There is an old philosophical puzzle... if Jesus demands that everyone "accept" him, what about those who have never heard of him? What you will hear from the VAST MAJORITY of Christian sects is some hand-waving version of "everyone is born with the knowledge in their hearts and they just choose to ignore it". It's same thing as "The scripture is inerrant. So if the scripture apparently conflicts with something obvious, measurable, and tangible... then it is that obvious, measurable, tangible thing that is wrong." Few ever stop to think "Wait, is it ME who is wrong?"

So what does that have to do with Jesus and Nicodemus discussion about who gets accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven (the new creation/universe/reality/etc after this one)? Well, the discussion is a continuation of Righteousness doctrine. This goes all the way back to the Noachide Laws, which were ostensibly created by Noah to ensure his descendants lived Righteously in the eyes of God. These are actually very simple and mostly common sense, and serve as the foundation for the later Ten Commandments.

1. Don't worship idols. They aren't real.
2. If God reveals himself to you, obey him.
3. Don't murder.
4. Do not be promiscuous.
5. Don't steal.
6. Treat animals humanely (especially livestock).
7. Establish courts and pursue justice.

Even before Jesus, a gentile who lived this way - even unknowingly - was a righteous gentile. The Ten Commandments further expanded on this, but generally maintains the same core precepts. While Jesus and Nicodemus are specifically discussing the Israelite people, Jesus' answers (as does all of his teaching) call back to this simple formula... but with a twist for those alive in that place at that time...

Here is verse 18 again, with a translation that better avoids connotative errors: "Anyone that believes me will not be rejected; but those who don't believe... because they have seen and heard me, because they know my reputation as the sole offspring of God... they are already rejected."

Some verses might say "believe in me" (from "pisteuon eis auton"), but that's a connotative error. Jesus is saying "if you believe me, you will do these things I tell you. You will live them." And the inverse is true, in this context. Those who are already living that way, or who know the [Abrahamic] Law, will see the truth of his words and accept them.

To gentiles, things remain largely unchanged... other than (post-resurrection) the message that those who follow that teaching and live by it - not only Jews - can gain the gift of eternal life.

So again... I want to make clear what the message is (which is different than what you may assume... rightly so, given that's what frequently is taught)... to whom, at what time/circumstance, and why.

Let me be abundantly clear by repeating myself: the entirety of the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus concerns the people of Israel, and especially the Sanhredrin, their religious-political leaders.

There is no concept of “Christian” in this context. It had not yet been invented. Gentiles are not explicitly included in this discussion. The discussion is an extension of existing Pharisaic doctrine.

What parts of that would you like more clarification about?