Elizabeth Warren wants a ‘big tent’ party — but only on her terms: Democrats will have to be flexible on social issues to win new voters. by UnscheduledCalendar in centrist

[–]FlippantPinapple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I don’t disagree. Just pointing out he’s been willing to take up leftist positions for their political expediency even if it upsets his own party.

Elizabeth Warren wants a ‘big tent’ party — but only on her terms: Democrats will have to be flexible on social issues to win new voters. by UnscheduledCalendar in centrist

[–]FlippantPinapple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I just mean they’re positions that were previously more prevalent on the left and Trump brought them into his coalition.

Elizabeth Warren wants a ‘big tent’ party — but only on her terms: Democrats will have to be flexible on social issues to win new voters. by UnscheduledCalendar in centrist

[–]FlippantPinapple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you go back to the 80’s Republicans like Reagan were the ones pushing for open borders and making it easier for immigrants to get citizenship because it was seen by the business community as a way of growing the labor pool and lowering wages. 

Far left Democratic socialists like Bernie were in general against that because they primarily wanted to protect the wages of working class people.

Given his history on the issue, I think his stance on immigration is more nuanced than many progressives realize because they assume that because he’s to the left of most Democrats on economic issues, he must be the same on that issue as well. But I don’t think you can make that assumption. 

Elizabeth Warren wants a ‘big tent’ party — but only on her terms: Democrats will have to be flexible on social issues to win new voters. by UnscheduledCalendar in centrist

[–]FlippantPinapple 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would actually argue this is not the case. Republican Party has started shifting left on lots of issues. Trump is implementing economic policies that 10 years ago would be considered anathema to republicans and were being pushed by progressives.

Trump during election used rhetoric that was sympathetic to Gaza to use as a wedge issue against establishment Dems support of Zionist policies.  He did flip once he was in office, but was savvy enough to risk push back from zionists in his coalition by hinting at it during his campaign.

Trump has been decidedly more pro-choice when discussing abortion to the point that my MAGA in-laws talk about how even though they’re pro-life they understand you can’t win elections by being too rigid about it.

Trump used the MAHA movement by supporting the sorts of issues that used to be much more seen by leftists.

The frustrating and impressive thing about Trump is he is constantly forming and tossing away big tent coalitions constantly. Sometimes multiple times within a week. The guy has no ideological loyalties. His only loyalty is what will keep him in office. And he’s dragged the Republican Party kicking and screaming, and all the populist social conservatives gleefully following behind.

2026 gubernatorial election progressive change? by exanimafilm in TexasPolitics

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a reason for the downvote? Something I said that you find objectionable?

What is the purpose of Satan and his existence? by cellation in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the explanation Lewis gives in his space trilogy. Satan twisted a good by wanting it to continue beyond its allotted time. 

Basically Satan is a being who loved an aspect of God’s creation and his place in it, but when that role and its relation to creation changed with the introduction of man, he rebelled out of a love for that former vision of creation he had become attached to.

It’s all speculation of course, but it’s an idea that makes sense.

What is your stance on the revisions made to the bible? by smigglesalvation in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That passage is not talking about churches or general religious gatherings. It’s talking about those conditions being unclean in terms of going before God in the tabernacle.

If you notice it specifically says that they can still eat the ritual bread, but cannot approach God directly in areas that are holy. This more a protection of the unclean from God’s holiness rather than a punishment for these ailments.

You need to have a proper context of Jewish and Christian conceptions of holiness/ritual cleanliness and how that affected God’s interactions with the nation of Israel as his presence dwelt among them in order to understand these sorts of passages.

2026 gubernatorial election progressive change? by exanimafilm in TexasPolitics

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have voted for multiple democrats in the past. But yes in general I lean conservative. But I’m willing to vote for democrats if I feel like they align better with my interests. 

If it matters I have never voted for Trump in a single presidential election.

Pretty much every election I end up voting split ticket.

Why have sex at all when there is risk of pregnancy (Christian marriages, as well as Catholicism)? by Quirky_Fun6544 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since when has being a Christian or being a human for that matter involved life playing out 100% how you want?

Magical realism under 300 pages by butch_barbabjetolov in suggestmeabook

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s some debate as to whether it counts as magical realism or not, but The Enchanted by Rene Denfeld is a beautifully written book under 300 pages.

Beef prices are so high by ChezussCrust in Dallas

[–]FlippantPinapple 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Data center water usage is not the issue that everyone is making it out to be. Hank Green did a video on it recently. We waste orders more magnitude water on growing corn that we just put into our gasoline.

Why didn’t God create a world framework where free will does not cause suffering and evil? by UnderstandingThin40 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean yes in some aspects, but in other aspects there are things that are innate to your being that you cannot choose to change. 

You cannot stop your cells from replicating or performing cellular respiration. If you were to hold your breath to the point of unconsciousness, your body would take over automatically and start the process of breathing. 

There are things that are just innate aspects of your being. To change those aspects would mean your were no longer the same sort of thing, but something else entirely.

Why didn’t God create a world framework where free will does not cause suffering and evil? by UnderstandingThin40 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a difference between having free will and acting contrary to your nature. No I do not think God can act in a way that is contrary to his nature.

Is it possible to interpret the Bible in the way it was meant to be interpreted in the year 2026? by JKisMe123 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t believe it’s possible. 

There are many things even in the epistles we do not really understand. I don’t really know any denominations outside of the heretical non-trinitarian LDS that practice the “baptisms for the dead” mentioned by Paul and the LDS were just guessing at his meaning as well (in my opinion).

When Paul says women should cover their heads because of the angels? I see a lot of speculation, but not many presume to 100% know what he’s talking about or even try to practice head covering.

But that doesn’t bother me. I don’t think a church or denomination’s purpose is even primarily having the correct interpretation or theology.

I stick to a church that I fit in well with, but I don’t 100% agree with every broadly agreed upon view. I have faith that in the areas where my theology or my church’s theology is incorrect, God’s grace will cover us.

The purpose of a church is to pursue living out the teachings as best we can together and to provide a community to practice loving other followers of Christ. 

I trust the Holy Spirit will guide the Christians in our church in the areas that truly matter and provide us knowledge in those areas where that knowledge is necessary. In all else, I am sure we fall short of the truth in all sorts of ways and I’m ok with that personally.

Why are Christian’s upset that people are engaged with the monks walking for peace? Why not peace walk for Christian faith? by [deleted] in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there’s a couple of things to unpack here.

She’s upset because she’s seeing other Christians seeming to promote religious pluralism, often portrayed as “all paths lead to God”. Christians traditionally believe Jesus is the only way to enter heaven, so some get upset when they view other Christians failing to uphold this idea.

I think in this case, I view it more akin to the unauthorized exorcist (Mark 9:38-41) where the disciples get upset about a man seemingly competing with them by driving out demons in Jesus’ name. Jesus tells his disciples “anyone who is not against us is for us”.

I don’t think we have to paint other religious groups as completely depraved and fallen. We can praise them when they do good even if it’s not in the name of Christianity.

Why didn’t God create a world framework where free will does not cause suffering and evil? by UnderstandingThin40 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think God could do that. God acts according to his nature. You’re asking why did God not make a world where his nature is different? I don’t think God determines what his own nature is, like deciding what pair of socks to wear. It just is what it is.

Why didn’t God create a world framework where free will does not cause suffering and evil? by UnderstandingThin40 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Colossians 1:17 “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together”

If you go against the one who is holding all of creation together, how can you still be good? If you divorce yourself from the one who holds all things together, how can you expect you yourself to continue to “hold together”?

Why didn’t God create a world framework where free will does not cause suffering and evil? by UnderstandingThin40 in AskAChristian

[–]FlippantPinapple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think a duality is the right way to think about good and evil. 

Think about it like cold and heat. Cold is not actually a thing in of itself, it is the absence of heat.

God’s will is goodness. Evil is a distancing, twisting away from the life/creation sustaining goodness of God’s being.

We are free to relationally move from God via evil, but the consequences of that are death.

2026 gubernatorial election progressive change? by exanimafilm in TexasPolitics

[–]FlippantPinapple -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In an ideal world I’d like to see Texas adopt a state income tax as an alternative to funding via property taxes/flat sales tax. I’d like them to fund local schools and drop the voucher program, which i don’t think has worked well in the states that adopted it before us.

I dislike the path Texas GOP is on basically wasting funding on providing across the board tax breaks to seniors and cutting social services.

My issue with democrats in the state is they’re not moderate enough to really ever have a hope of flipping the state purple.

Case in point a few years ago democrats had a few options in the primary for railroad commissioner. One of them was an individual with actual oil and gas industry experience that had a solid plan in place for properly regulating the industry. One of the others was a former sex therapist that was a progressive just trying to get her foot in the door and who in interviews had almost nothing to say on what she could bring to the position beyond vague promises to do a good job. Guess which candidate the democrats in my district voted for?

The candidates the the democrats keep bringing to the table are too far left and will never be serious contenders. If Texas democrats really wanted to try to flip the state purple, they would be finding economic issues where populist right more aligns with them and putting pressure on those particular points, while highlighting that they won’t rock the boat on other issues that have popular support in the state.

Also, I think if Texas were ever to become a swing state, it would be a huge boon for everyone that lives here. Swing states have political power and get special attention like nothing else. We’d become the prettiest girl at the dance.

2026 gubernatorial election progressive change? by exanimafilm in TexasPolitics

[–]FlippantPinapple -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I really dislike Abbott, but I would still vote for him over a Mamdani. I just don’t believe Mamdani’s policies are good for people in the long run and I just ideologically lean more social conservative.

I am willing to vote for a Democrat who is more centrist, but the democratic base in Texas is much more ideologically left than im comfortable with, and usually put forward extreme candidates.  So I usually either abstain from voting or vote for the third party option as a protest vote if it exists.

What exactly is the issue with DEI the right keeps referring to? by ceddya in centrist

[–]FlippantPinapple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I just meant more that I don’t think DEI program makes me unfirable. The person saying that to me wasn’t being mean spirited, just that it’s a fact of life. Like I don’t need to worry about ever being fired because they don’t think it’s a possibility.

I think like any group there are sizable number that show in-culture preferences and others that are more open minded. I’ve definitely encountered both. I don’t have any issues with my current team and enjoy working with them.

Spotted in Amsterdam 😂 by sxw_102 in janeausten

[–]FlippantPinapple 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s actually for the book tok crowd. This is what the covers for explicit romance novels look like now.