Messages

1

Your Turn / Pope Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

« on: October 21, 2020, 01:26:26 PM »

A Politico article reports comments from Pope Francis backing same-sex civil unions.

https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-backs-same-sex-civil-unions/

I do not know how to react to this actually.  Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than any other sin.  Those tempted by that sin must struggle with it as we struggle with all other sins, and they should be treated compassionately regarding that struggle.  The forgiveness of Christ is available to all.

This seems affirming of homosexuality however.  I honestly do not know if this is a significant change in the Pope's attitude, or I just have been unaware.

What do others here think?

2

Your Turn / Re: Election 2020

« on: October 21, 2020, 09:59:35 AM »

The thing that sets him apart from other Republicans is his willingness to fight rather than cave when he meets resistance. But in that case the resistance is every bit as much to blame for the division as Trump.

This  This is where we disagree. This is what belies Trump's election-night speech.

Trump's intention to fight rather than compromise is what attracts many of his supporters.  That is understood.  It does not honor an intention to  "bind the wounds of division" and "be president for all Americans" though.

Doing so requires going the extra mile.  It takes meeting hostility with peace and not more hostility.  “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”  It takes respecting those who oppose you rather than mocking them with silly nicknames.  It takes calmly refuting media misrepresentations as I'll argue that Kayleigh McEnany does well rather than attacking the media.

I'll say once again that I think Trump's policies have been good on balance.  However, since the point brought up here is one of fostering unity, I have to disagree that Trump has done this in any way.  As you point out in what I quote, that approach completely contradicts how Trump works.

3

Your Turn / Re: Election 2020

« on: October 21, 2020, 09:12:44 AM »

Again, here are Trump's words from election night 2016. Obviously some of the specific promises remain unfulfilled, either due to contrary branches of government having their say, movements dedicated to being "the resistance," and of course Covid-19 and the riots. But the spirit of the thing is very conciliatory and very welcoming. Anyone interested in unity could find something to join here. If they didn't join, it is because they only want unity on their terms, which is not a desire for unity with citizens of different views but for victory over an enemy.

Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. I’ve just received a call from Secretary Clinton. She congratulated us — it’s about us — on our victory, and I congratulated her and her family on a very, very hard-fought campaign. I mean, she — she fought very hard. Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country. I mean that very sincerely.

Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me. For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people. . . I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.

As I’ve said from the beginning, ours was not a campaign, but rather an incredible and great movement made up of millions of hard-working men and women who love their country and want a better, brighter future for themselves and for their families.

It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will. Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream. I’ve spent my entire life and business looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world. That is now what I want to do for our country.

Tremendous potential. I’ve gotten to know our country so well — tremendous potential. It’s going to be a beautiful thing. Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.

We will also finally take care of our great veterans. They’ve been so loyal, and I’ve gotten to know so many over this 18-month journey. The time I’ve spent with them during this campaign has been among my greatest honors. Our veterans are incredible people. We will embark upon a project of national growth and renewal. I will harness the creative talents of our people and we will call upon the best and brightest to leverage their tremendous talent for the benefit of all. It’s going to happen.

We have a great economic plan. We will double our growth and have the strongest economy anywhere in the world. At the same time, we will get along with all other nations willing to get along with us. We will be.

I remember this speech.  It gave me hope especially his kind words to Secretary Clinton.  This is the president that I hoped we had elected.

It is not the president that we got.  I'm sorry, Pr. Speckhard.  Trump's pledges to "bind the wounds of division" and "be president for all Americans" were not fulfilled, and this cannot be blamed on anyone but Trump.  Gaslighting is mentioned here; anyone who argues that these pledges were fulfilled by a president who routinely attacks people and trolls the media is doing just that. Gaslighting.

I can go along with arguments that Trump's policies have been good for the conservative cause.  I cannot agree that this speech of Trump's was honored in any way by his presidency.

4

Your Turn / Re: Election 2020

« on: October 20, 2020, 04:22:41 PM »

I'm also not voting for Biden, because Kamala Harris...otherwise I would while holding my nose, despite his typical class warfare campaign demagoguery. 

Just out of curiosity, which running mate might Biden have chosen that would enable you to vote for him while holding your nose? Warren? Sanders?  I assume, despite your "otherwise," that quite a few of the other options would also have prevented you from voting for him.

I don't know about Mr. (Pr. ?) Spatz, but I would have been OK with Klobuchar or maybe even Warren given that Biden promised to choose a woman for his VP.  If he did not hold to that, I would have been fine with Andrew Yang or Cory Booker.   However, you are right that I found all of the frontrunners including Susan Rice, Tammy Duckworth, Stacey Abrams, and Kamala Harris unpalatable due to their strongly liberal positions.

5

Your Turn / Re: Election 2020

« on: October 15, 2020, 05:47:01 PM »

I don’t think there is a better symbol of the state of American politics than having two competing town hall meetings on different networks at the same time instead of one debate.

Yep.  The only thing better would be to have one on Facebook and the other on Parler.

The most incredibly ironic thing is that Trump's town hall is on NBC which is no friend to the president.   Fox, I'd understand, but NBC?  I'm hoping we don't see fistfights as slanted questions meet delusional propaganda.  The fact-checkers will have a long night tonight.

6

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 15, 2020, 04:54:34 PM »

They have pointed out in 2016 and now that if the Senate has the power to block a Supreme Court confirmation until after the election in an election year, then they are right in doing so.  If the White House and Senate are of the same party in an election year, then they are right to proceed with a confirmation.

The problem with that argument is that logic would seem to require one to extend the "no confirmation" argument back two whole years--maybe even four. What's so hallowed about an "in an election year"? If there's a Republican president but the Democrats take the Senate in the midterm elections, couldn't they reasonably say, the very day after the election, "Well, the people have spoken; they've elected a Democratic Senate, and so we're not confirming anybody until after the next election when they have a chance to speak again"?

I really wouldn't give anyone any ideas. 

Only a little more seriously, you make an interesting point here in that I do fear we could see this exercise in power legitimately last two years given that the mid-term elections now practically seem to kick off the campaign cycle for candidates running for the presidential election two years later.

I'd hope to think that a president of the other party would put forth a moderate candidate which could get confirmation.  But then that is exactly what Obama did with Merrick Garland, and we know how that worked out.

It also raises another interesting scenario.  What if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 and, to extend the hypothetical even farther, the Republicans had lost the Senate?

I believe the lame-duck Senate would have moved to confirm Merrick Garland with all due haste as a justice the Republicans could reasonably live with.

Now, if you think the hypocrisy arguments this year have been strong, imagine what they could have been in this situation.  The Republicans, rightly and consistently, would argue that the people had spoken and therefore they were now proceeding to confirm the nomination placed before them.

The Democrats would be placed in a bind.  They would be hypocritical in withdrawing the Garland nomination or voting it down after having talked it up so much.  However, they clearly would have yearned to put forward a more liberal candidate especially if they had control of the Senate to ensure confirmation.

I'm thinking they would have risked the charges of hypocrisy and withdrawn the nomination anyway arguing that President Clinton had the right to nominate her own justice once she took office.  Perhaps I am wrong.  I do agree with Mr. Garner that this has all turned into a naked power game and looks to remain so for some time.

7

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 15, 2020, 03:33:14 PM »

Mr. Gehlhusen,

Does a change in opinion ALWAYS mean one is hypocritical?  That is, do you have no room for an honest change of one's mind?

I have plenty of room for an honest change of mind.  I don't doubt that Lindsay Graham honestly changed his mind.  He's changed his mind on a lot more serious things like cozying up politically to a man who consistently insults the memory of Graham's long-time friend, John McCain.

But Lindsay Graham said, "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' ".  He then doubled down on the sentiment in October 2018.

He has to live with that.  And if others judge him to be hypocritical on this point, they have a legitimate basis to do so.

Rev Bohler ... while voters are free to base their decisions on anything including lies, Mr Gehlhausen fails to acknowledge the hypocrisy of those with whom he agrees. Half truths abounds ... Mr Gelhlhausen consciously furthers the hypocrisy by partisanly condemning Sen Graham without applying the same standards to Biden/Harris, Schumer and others who spoke in favor of filling the SCOTUS seat 4 years ago.

James,

What have I posted that is a lie? 

I'm also curious just who is that you think I agree with.  In general, I've found the Republicans to be much less hypocritical than the Democrats on this issue.  They have pointed out in 2016 and now that if the Senate has the power to block a Supreme Court confirmation until after the election in an election year, then they are right in doing so.  If the White House and Senate are of the same party in an election year, then they are right to proceed with a confirmation.

Lindsay Graham, unlike most Republicans, went out of his way in 2016 and 2018 to say that he believed that a Supreme Court confirmation should wait until after the election even in the last year of a Republican president's term. 

And for the record, I do believe Biden/Harris and Schumer are being hypocritical on this.  If it was important to not leave a Supreme Court seat open in 2016, it is important now.  I think the confirmation hearings have shown that the Court will be hearing important cases on Obamacare and probably on election issues.

8

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 15, 2020, 01:58:46 PM »

Mr. Gehlhusen,

Does a change in opinion ALWAYS mean one is hypocritical?  That is, do you have no room for an honest change of one's mind?

I have plenty of room for an honest change of mind.  I don't doubt that Lindsay Graham honestly changed his mind.  He's changed his mind on a lot more serious things like cozying up politically to a man who consistently insults the memory of Graham's long-time friend, John McCain.

But Lindsay Graham said, "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' ".  He then doubled down on the sentiment in October 2018.

He has to live with that.  And if others judge him to be hypocritical on this point, they have a legitimate basis to do so.

9

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 15, 2020, 01:37:06 PM »

Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

There is no hypocrisy in these two cases.

Mitch McConnell very clearly and repeatedly explained (in both 2016 and 2020) that when a Supreme Court nomination is made during an election year and different parties hold the White House and Senate, the American people should be given the opportunity to break the impasse; but when the same party holds both, there is no impasse to break--the will of the people was already expressed in the previous elections. In fact, Republicans campaigned specifically on judicial nominations in both 2016 (when Trump won the presidency) and 2018 (when they expanded their Senate majority). Moreover, there was nothing unprecedented about either situation; on the contrary, both were handled in a manner consistent with virtually all the relevant precedents.

As for Lindsey Graham, he has explicitly acknowledged that he changed his mind about confirming a Supreme Court nominee during the last year of Trump's first term because of how the Democrats mistreated Brett Kavanaugh.

Most in terms of this issue have pointed to who controls the Senate as an important difference regarding confirmation in an election year.  Sen. McConnell has been very consistent on this.

However, out of everyone on both sides, Lindsay Graham is one of the few that can be found hypocritical. 

Graham has said multiple times that if a vacancy opened up in the run-up to a presidential election, he would hold off on confirmation.

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." pic.twitter.com/quD1K5j9pz
— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) September 19, 2020 

Graham repeated the sentiment in October 2018 in an interview with The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914774433/use-my-words-against-me-lindsey-graham-s-shifting-position-on-court-vacancies

Graham is free to use the brutal confirmation process Justice Kavanaugh underwent as a reason he has changed his mind.  He also did not know how political winds might change when he made his original comments in 2016.  However, it was unwise for him to double down on the point in 2018 when he really had no reason to do so.

As Graham struggles in his Senate re-election campaign this fall, people are indeed using his words against him.  It's only fair.  He gave them permission to do so.

10

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 15, 2020, 10:55:39 AM »

So far not one of you have said, "My sexual preference is to be straight." Think about that for a moment.

Pastor Speckhard, I cannot believe that you are that dense. Of course Gay people get married, engage in heterosexual sex but societal pressure is always the overriding concern that these people have and they do not act to their true selves. I'm 72 years old and from a very early age I have had the prescience to know that getting married and having children were not in the cards for me. I have seen so many Gay people get married and have families. They are the unhappiest group of people around with a big, big secret. And some can no longer handle it and separate from their wives and families to start a new life thus devastating those left behind.

If it were that simple, why don't straight people flip the switch since it is so easy.

Nowhere was it said or implied that changing one's preferences, sexual or otherwise, is easy as flipping a switch. "Sexual preference" doesn't mean that. The point is that language police push an agenda by making speech a matter of virtue signaling. The most up-to-the-minute terminology serves no real purpose other than to distinguish the people who are really on board with progressivism from those who are merely going along with it to avoid conflict.

There was zero reason to correct Judge Barrett. There was not even real offense taken, as it evidenced by the lack of a rebuke even in recent days and weeks when other people used that term. It was purely a power play, to make the point that Judge Barrett is not a true believer, a fellow traveler with the Left.

This is why "virtue signaling" is a term in modern parlance.

Virtue signaling as it is, I am glad that Amy Comey Barrett calmly accepted the criticism, said she did not mean to offend, and moved on.  While conservative media rage on and on about this, it defused the issue completely regarding the hearings.

I know that a great deal of Trump's base appreciates that he "does not play the media's game" and thus often doubles down in a situation like this.  I know that by doing so he reinforces to that base that he will not let political correctness and the cancel culture intimidate him.  I know that it also allows Trump to dominate the news cycle.

I still think it is foolish.  Perhaps that simply means that while I acknowledge that Trump has done many good things policy-wise in his administration, I still find his being intentionally coarse and offensive to achieve those ends extremely distasteful.  I'm on the other edge of the line where being crass and insulting turns me off rather than fires me up.

As the election nears and early voting has already started, I've noticed a significant number of Republican senators and congresspeople distancing from Trump.  Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, I am hoping that this represents the breaking of the fever which showed key Republicans like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz embrace Trump despite their earlier distaste for him.  Up until now, a Trump endorsement or Trump criticism often made the difference in the Republican primaries.   Even if Trump is re-elected, I think that many Republicans will not feel their electoral futures to be as bound to Trump, and I think they'll back off of the offensiveness for offensiveness' sake and act independently.

I'd love for Ben Sasse and Mitch McConnell to epitomize the future of the Republican party while the Trumpian populism fades into the background.  Policy-wise that much may not change nor should it, but the change in tenor would be greatly appreciated.

* edited to correct wording

11

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 14, 2020, 02:01:05 PM »

Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.

I heard him earlier in the week interviewed on NPR Morning Edition, without knowing at first who it was (came in late to segment).  I was extremely impressed how he was answering the interviewer and pushing back at implicit assumptions about the role of the judiciary, making a very good case which the interviewer conceded along the way.  The best sign that your messaging is working.

Frankly didn't know he was that smooth, and in light of the NY Times rebellion his op-ed caused...yes, I'd like him to run for president some day.  They say every senator harbors that ambition and thinks himself presidential worthy, though strangely few actually succeed in the recent era.  Of course, he'll have to get by his fellow senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) who is clearly angling for the post-Trump populist mantle on the national stage.  Hawley strikes me as a more traditional run-of-the-mill pol demagogue like pretty much everybody else, so not a fan.  Especially with his recent grandstanding (pre-RBG's passing) that he would not vote for any Supreme Court nominee who would not affirm they would overturn Roe v Wade.  Yeah buddy, like you would certainly be the deciding vote to tank getting to replace Notorious RBG.  Insincere demagoguery playing for headlines, thinking the next nominee would come from a Democratic president.

I think Sasse would make an excellent president as well.  Which is probably exactly why he won't run any time soon at least unless Trump crashes and burns this election.  I do not see him fighting the uphill fight in the Republican party against the Trumpian populism Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton represent.

12

Your Turn / Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

« on: October 14, 2020, 10:00:12 AM »

Reportedly, Justice Scalia whispered to President Obama that it would be good to appoint Kagan as a Justice.   

Peace, JOHN

I've heard this as well.  Admiration for her intellect and appreciation for her temperament supposedly were shared by Justice Scalia and other justices.  These qualities make the work of cloistered jurists better and more enjoyable, perhaps especially when that work will necessarily involve debate and disagreement.

I'm not certain whether Justice Scalia ever spoke to President Obama.  My understanding is that he spoke to David Axelrod who then passed the news on to Obama. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

13

Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news

« on: October 08, 2020, 04:25:45 PM »

I think you should have cited a source.

Regeneron told Heavy that their antibody cocktail was not developed using human fetal or embryonic stem cells, but it did use “immortalized epithelial cells” that were originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells at Stanford in the 1980s. Regeneron told Heavy that these were “immortalized epithelial cells” and not stem cells. These cells weren’t used to create the antibody cocktail itself, but they were used to test its potency.

I design and write software.  Other people test the software.  Testing is done during development to find problems before the software is finished.  Testing is also done one last time at the end of the process to see if we have missed anything.  Testers don't write software that ships to customers.

If a technology derived from an evil source was used to test the software, is the software itself evil?

In my opinion, it depends all upon whether it is a matter of "was used" or "is consistently used".   If the matter is that an evil technology was used for testing, then this is a past event.  It can be regretted, but I would not feel the software itself is evil because it is a finished product.  The evil has ended and is not ongoing.

However, if continuous testing with the evil technology is done to validate the software as a part of its development, then I would say that does make the software evil

So, if the vaccine would not be a finished product and embryonic stem cells are needed to validate the efficacy of the lots of the vaccine in some way, then I would be concerned.   My health would be benefited by the death of unborn children.  That is one of the concerns I've always had about the use of embryonic stem cell research to find a cure or treatment for things like Parkinson's.

I don't know if I would look at such a situation as sinning boldly and trusting in God's grace even more boldly or if I would have the courage to hold out on being vaccinated until a more ethical vaccine existed.  Herd immunity from those who have been vaccinated would also be a factor.

14

Your Turn / Re: Personal role models apart from political positions

« on: October 08, 2020, 09:58:32 AM »

I would point to Elena Kagan.  She has a good sense of humor, and she has worked well and with integrity.   I will admit that I do base this on Justice Scalia's high regard for her.

15

Your Turn / Re: Election 2020

« on: October 08, 2020, 07:53:47 AM »

I've said before that I will not vote for either Trump or Biden in this election.  I had planned to leave the presidential line blank.

But I've decided!  I am writing in the fly!