I assumed you meant the competent republican will be so successful, the party will win the next election and the dems will not be able to compete. So you would rather they fail and let you win.

But now I realise that you actually implied they will rig the elections, which makes me think you are dramatising even more, since I doubt that will happen.

Maybe you are right, but I would not underestimate how quickly things can change. The did change quickly with Trump, did they not?

Why would they not support him? A sizeable portion of their base love the guy. He has a lot of power.

And why would the situation not change if a more sensible person assumed leadership of the party? Things can change rather quickly, and if his term goes badly I doubt the conservative establishment will appreciate another idiot nominee with a god complex.

The democrats nominated a barely functioning senile man that can’t string a sentence together for president twice. That does not mean that every single nominee that comes after is going to have dementia, does it?

Being more competent than Trump is hardly remarkable.

I believe you are being unfair to republicans. I understand the desire to caricature the other side, but this is unbecoming of Boddhisatva.

Would you rather not have a competent government? You are dramatising a bit I believe.

Maybe the next Republican will be more sensible.

I read it as "robot that can eat orgasms for fuel. My version is better.

If only these nonreligious people recognised how little they know about religion.

I might have changed my views on certain things after coming to the fediverse, and now I see that Lemmy is an echochamber. It seems like right wing and even moderate people just stayed on twitter and “truth social”, which are echochambers as well, especially the latter, clearly, and I end up arguing with everyone all the time.

Hey, do you mind telling me why I got down voted, if you have an idea why, of course?

I do not believe I said anything particularly contentious this time, and I do not believe I said anything factually wrong either.

If you are a country with a GDP that is 1000 or 10000 times higher it will not be a problem.

Not to the early Christians it wasn’t. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.

That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.

Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.

Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.

Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.

They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.

Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.

Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.

The idea that early christianity was somehow “more pure” I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.

You missed my point. Islands are irrelevant. Russia isn’t.

Your great argument has changed my mind. I now see that I was wrong. Thank you.

Lmao, what? Why even?

Well, even then, these islands are not significant geopolitical actors. And tarrifs will certinly not hurt the Russian economy, and I doubt they are going to help the US in terms of geopolitics.

Vive le dirt!!!

3 billion is nothing.

I wonder how much the EU imports.

Russia exports next to nothing to the US, but it does import things like electronics for obvious reasons.

Tarrifs on Russia will be pointless, really. Russia has been trading with Europe for the most part for obvious reasons until it fell out of favour. So this seems like manufactured outrage.

Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?

Also, it doesn’t have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.

The question of “should Christians strive for a classless society” is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the “fallen world” authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.

However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after “the base” changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.

Got twice as much as Jean Valjean. Absolutely hilarious.

Someone should sens him a copy of the book. I think it will resonate with him quite a bit.

Wtf Finland, how dare you make rational political decisions?