Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches

[Norman Teigen]

There are conspiracies out there.    One is that the election. was rigged and that Donald Trump  had many more votes than Joe Biden.  Dark forces were at work.  No evidence of fraud proves that this is true because the conspirators are clever at what they do .   Another is that Elvis is not dead.  Where is his Social Security check?

[peter_speckhard]

So let me ask your this-- IF it were to happen to that when the dust settles it turns out Trump is reelected, will you all go along with it without question, accept his second term as your president, and call anyone who doubts the process that somehow ended up with him winning a conspiracy nut?

[Norman Teigen]

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

[Dan Fienen]

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

What does belief about the ontological status of Elvis have to do with this election? It's merely a way to ridicule those you disagree with without offering anything of substance.

[David Garner]

So let me ask your this-- IF it were to happen to that when the dust settles it turns out Trump is reelected, will you all go along with it without question, accept his second term as your president, and call anyone who doubts the process that somehow ended up with him winning a conspiracy nut?

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

It appears that party affiliation more than substance is what defines a "conspiracy nut" according to Mr. Teigen.  If you don't agree with him, you're a nut.  If you do, then you get to call people who don't nuts.

That's reason enough not to take him seriously.

[peter_speckhard]

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

Yes. So what? The same people who told us on election night that they could now say that the Democrats would pick up between 5-15 seats in the House have now gradually had to admit that in reality the Democrats lost 12-13 seats in the House. What they were so absolutely confident about turned out to be almost the opposite of the truth. There is no point in putting stock in news accounts until they are verified. So why not wait until everything settles down before making a declaration? If it turns out that illegally cast ballots get disqualified, it will likely also turn out that several states will flip. We will find out. There is no reason to have a dogmatic opinion in advance of the fact. 

[DeHall1]

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

In 2002, Elvis was living in the Shady Rest Retirement Home in East Texas, known to the staff as Sebastian Haff.

Interesting fact -- JFK (who was patched up after the assassination attempt, dyed black, and later abandoned by Lyndon Johnson) lived there as well.

[Dan Fienen]

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

Agent Jay: You do know that Evis is dead, right?


Agent Kay: No, Elvis is not dead, he just went home.

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
Currently enough ballots are disputed in enough states to have swayed the election.

Me:
I say hogwash, and I would ask you to name them and count them, but that would be being obsessed with certain things. No one anywhere, any place, in any situation, has found any evidence of fraud or of miscounting that would change the result. That is an objective fact.
(But then, so is an earth of multi-billion years birth and a humanity shaped by evolution.)

[Randy Bosch]

...evidence of fraud or of miscounting that would change the result... 

That is the qualifying statement that has a high liklehood of being correct.

The rest of your screed is simply to demonize those of difference opinions than your own.
Your quest for objective truth would also note that of all of the 1000's of not-peaceful rioters in 633 cities who vandalized, burgled, robbed, beat, killed, burned, this year (so far), almost all who were arrested at the scene (a small number compared to the total involved) were released without charges or intent of further investigation or prosecution.
This is how they were rendered "peaceful", being vindicated of any crime by the grace and mercy of government.
There is no evidence of governmental fraud or misprocessing that would change the result
Therefore, there were no riots.

But, this is a thread about Recent Su"r"preme Court Decision Concerning Churches, so feel free to ignore any comments regarding that fact.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter:
Currently enough ballots are disputed in enough states to have swayed the election.

Me:
I say hogwash, and I would ask you to name them and count them, but that would be being obsessed with certain things. No one anywhere, any place, in any situation, has found any evidence of fraud or of miscounting that would change the result. That is an objective fact.
(But then, so is an earth of multi-billion years birth and a humanity shaped by evolution.)

Assuming you discount any account of fraud or miscounting as hogwash, I guess you could say in a mere tautological sense that all such hogwash is hogwash. That such ballots are in dispute is not hogwash, though, it is the simple fact; someone is disputing them. As to whether their claims have merit, I'm not sure how you personally would know either way. But you seem awfully opposed to settling the dispute through normal legal channels.

Some suspicious things at least call for some plausible explanation. For example, the ballots drops in Pennsylvania that went well over 99% for Biden and provided several times the margin of victory. How does that happen? What demographic of people voted 99.6% for Biden? Early voters? African-Americans? When 570,000 votes come in for Biden with just over 3,000 for Trump in the same drops, the prima facie explanation is fraud unless someone explains how such numbers can possibly make sense. There is no demographic of voter, not even taking into account several layers of intersectionality, that voted in such numbers in such a lopsided way. There may be some explanation, but I've yet to hear it, and it is insulting to be told that any questioning of such ballot drops is conspiracy theory hogwash. I'm sure if they did a recount and suddenly they found a cache of ballots that hadn't been counted before, and those ballots went 85,000 to 500 in favor in Trump, giving him the state, you'd think, "Wait a minute. How can that be? I'd like to look into that."

[Norman Teigen]

I tried to inject some humor into the discussion with the Elvis joke.  Seriously, the issue of denial is serious and there is a lesson from history to consider.  Jochen Bittner wrote in the Times about 1918 Germany and the alarmism from the term "Dolchstosslegende" or stab-in-the-back.  "It's core claim was that Imperial Germany never lost World War I.  Defeat, its proponents said, was declared but now warranted.  It was a conspiracy, a con, a capitulation--a grave betrayal that forever stained the nation."  Nobody is saying that President Trump is like Hitler "but the Dolchstosslegende provides a warning. " It's laughable that Trump makes his claims but it is no joke.    "Instead the campaign i.e. the Trump claims, should be seen as what it is:  an attempt to elevate 'They stole it' to the level of legend, perhaps seeding for the future social polarization and division on a scale America has never seen."

[Charles Austin]

Peter, you speculate on things of which you cannot possibly have knowledge. But that's OK.
You write:
As to whether their claims have merit, I'm not sure how you personally would know either way. But you seem awfully opposed to settling the dispute through normal legal channels.

I comment:
No, I do not "personally" know. But I do know that every court case has been tossed, sometimes with a scathing rebuke from the judge, on occasion a conservative, Republican-appointed judge. So the "normal legal channels" have been surfed, the surfers either dunked or drowned, their muddled heads bonked on a reef. I am certainly not opposed to these "normal legal channels", but you seem to be opposed to accepting their decisions.
And meanwhile the President and Guiliani continue to - without evidence - to howl about the "stolen" election. This is not "normal legal channels," this is lying and an attempt to nullify the election.
A recent column, not immediately at hand, noted that after World War I, German generals and leaders insisted that they had not "lost" the war, that the truce was unfairly forced upon them and that they actually won the war. This was used to build up opposition to the victors in the war and to convince the Germans that their valid "victory" had been denied them.
This is why I remain concerned about the Man in the White House, who has now raised $170 million since the election in "campaign" funds or "election defense funds", and the rumblings about him running again.
I shall try to find the Newsweek article dissecting his weirdly crazed phone call with the Fox News person. And these were not "spins," they are actual words he has spoken and those words compared with objective, factual truth.
P.S. As I write this, Mr.Teigen has cited the article about dolchstosslegende.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Do you believe that Elvis is dead?

Yes. So what? The same people who told us on election night that they could now say that the Democrats would pick up between 5-15 seats in the House have now gradually had to admit that in reality the Democrats lost 12-13 seats in the House. What they were so absolutely confident about turned out to be almost the opposite of the truth. There is no point in putting stock in news accounts until they are verified. So why not wait until everything settles down before making a declaration? If it turns out that illegally cast ballots get disqualified, it will likely also turn out that several states will flip. We will find out. There is no reason to have a dogmatic opinion in advance of the fact.

When will you consider things "settled down"? When one lawsuit (or 30) are thrown out, the President and his team just file another one. I recall being told by opponents, "Just saying the same thing over and over and over again doesn't make it true."

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter:
Currently enough ballots are disputed in enough states to have swayed the election.

Me:
I say hogwash, and I would ask you to name them and count them, but that would be being obsessed with certain things. No one anywhere, any place, in any situation, has found any evidence of fraud or of miscounting that would change the result. That is an objective fact.
(But then, so is an earth of multi-billion years birth and a humanity shaped by evolution.)

Assuming you discount any account of fraud or miscounting as hogwash, I guess you could say in a mere tautological sense that all such hogwash is hogwash. That such ballots are in dispute is not hogwash, though, it is the simple fact; someone is disputing them. As to whether their claims have merit, I'm not sure how you personally would know either way. But you seem awfully opposed to settling the dispute through normal legal channels.

Some suspicious things at least call for some plausible explanation. For example, the ballots drops in Pennsylvania that went well over 99% for Biden and provided several times the margin of victory. How does that happen? What demographic of people voted 99.6% for Biden? Early voters? African-Americans? When 570,000 votes come in for Biden with just over 3,000 for Trump in the same drops, the prima facie explanation is fraud unless someone explains how such numbers can possibly make sense. There is no demographic of voter, not even taking into account several layers of intersectionality, that voted in such numbers in such a lopsided way. There may be some explanation, but I've yet to hear it, and it is insulting to be told that any questioning of such ballot drops is conspiracy theory hogwash. I'm sure if they did a recount and suddenly they found a cache of ballots that hadn't been counted before, and those ballots went 85,000 to 500 in favor in Trump, giving him the state, you'd think, "Wait a minute. How can that be? I'd like to look into that."

Or maybe your source of information is faulty. Sites I looked at said that 99% of the votes in Philadelphia had been counted; not that 99% were for Biden. Can you post where you got your statistics?