Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mike Gehlhausen

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20]
286
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:46:50 AM »
A good friend lives in a very nice neighborhood in St. Paul.  His neighbors were home one day and heard someone enter their house.  A few young men came in and took a number of valuables as the residents huddled in terror.  Thankfully, nobody was hurt.  The husband/father called the St. Paul Police Department to report the burglary.  The dispatcher said that the police could do nothing to help.  The family were welcome to file a report, but realistically, given the riots raging around the city, the dispatcher said that the police likely would never do anything in response.


Millions of people today care a great deal about being able to defend the innocents around them (and themselves).  I therefore think that this will be a very potent issue this fall.


I know that you have a different view on this whole issue.  I respect your principles and your willingness to apply them to your life.  A sizable minority (perhaps right now even a majority) have reached a different conclusion.

Mr. Gale,

Good thoughts.  Obviously, COVID-19 will play a large role in this year's Presidential campaign.  As you show though, both panic over COVID-19 restrictions and the general unrest following George Floyd's killing indicate gun use and gun control may also easily play an underlying role.  If police are distrusted and/or reduced in their roles, then people will look to guns for self-defense.   This was an issue before COVID-19, and it is still an issue now.

Much more of an issue in the long run than short-term things such as how many attended the Tulsa rally. 

287
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: June 22, 2020, 05:01:55 PM »
Mr. Gehlhausen:
Freedom of religion.  There is a strong case to be made that as things open back up after COVID-19 restrictions, changes relating to gathering for religious worship have lagged behind changes in many states to permit patronizing restaurants, retail stores, and even hair salons.
Me:
There can be a discussion over whether these restrictions truly constitute a threat to freedom of religion. Churches are required to adhere to safety and zoning regulations, and that is not construed as a threat to freedom of religion.

Justified or not, they constitute a threat to freedom of religion.  We can discuss whether they are justified.  That the government has placed impediments before Americans seeking to worship is evident.  That government has been slower to remove these impediments for churches and other religious organizations than it has been to remove them for businesses is evident.

I appreciate that you agree there is a need for watchfulness in these things. 

288
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: June 22, 2020, 12:58:48 PM »
Pastor Fienen:
Especially with some Democrats publically suggesting that rsections of the Bill of Rights need to be toned down, curbed, or eliminated?
Me:
Tell me who, how, and where. Be specific.
And it is your guy suggesting that reporters be locked up.

Pr. Austin,

I'll disagree with Pr. Fienan limiting this to Democrats, but otherwise, he has a point.  Indeed, you may even agree with some of these limits.

Freedom of religion.  There is a strong case to be made that as things open back up after COVID-19 restrictions, changes relating to gathering for religious worship have lagged behind changes in many states to permit patronizing restaurants, retail stores, and even hair salons.

Freedom of assembly. There is no question that COVID-19 strengthened the legal case to restrict free assembly.  Indeed, I believe most would agree those restrictions were and are reasonable.  And yet, this strengthened capability to restrict freedom of assembly allows the government to more easily impose it unevenly.  Black Lives Matter rallies are deemed socially relevant while political rallies such as Trump's Tulsa rally are met with resistance.

Freedom of speech.  The "clear and present danger" limitation to free speech was enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes around 100 years ago.  However, as doxxing and the cancel culture grow in power, the government's temptation to limit perceived hate speech as constituting just such a danger has also grown.

Right to bear arms Do we even have to present an argument that the Democratic party seeks to limit this right more than the Republican party does?

Protection from unreasonable search and seizure Patriot Act, anyone?

There is a reason that the rights above were among the first rights enumerated as these rights were developed and then adopted.  It is not because they are popular even though many celebrate them in the abstract;  it is because the specifics concerning them are often unpopular. It therefore becomes easy to justify curtailing them as being for the common good and national security.

With regard to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, I do agree with Pr. Fienen that I see Democrats as currently more prominent in seeking to curtail these rights.   Conservatives may derisively dismiss what the left says, but they largely stand up for their right to say those things and gather in support of them.

289
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: June 22, 2020, 11:20:10 AM »
And can you also recognize the people smarter and better informed than either of us are fearful of the effects of an authoritarian leaning Left gaining control of the government? Especially with some Democrats publically suggesting that rsections of the Bill of Rights need to be toned down, curbed, or eliminated?

I'm personally trying not to overreact to such fears.  I'm trying to listen to the legitimate concerns of the Black Lives Matter movement and similar movements calling for law enforcement reform.  I say that with full recognition that some of the rhetoric so far has not been legitimate in my opinion.  Calls to defund the police are not reasonable in my estimation.  The cancel culture's ascendancy also does cause me concern that valid reactions to hate speech may metastasize into attempts to legally chill free speech.

The Overton Window seems to be shifting quickly these days.  Given that, while I do have my concerns about Joe Biden's stamina to take on the Presidency, I do breathe a bit more easily that he will be the Democratic nominee.  As such, I don't see an authoritarian leaning Left gaining control of the government as any more likely than the Trump Derangement Syndrome folks' fears of a Trump authoritarian takeover.

I recognize that history contains sufficient examples that authoritarianism can happen here just as it has happened elsewhere whether from the "left" or from the "right".  We cannot hide our eyes to the possibility of such.   It does no good to see government jackboots behind every corner either though.

290
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: June 22, 2020, 09:38:18 AM »
On the other hand, if the 2020 election is close, do I see President Trump requesting a recount and using legal means to defend his position?  Yes, and he would have the right to do so. He would have a lot of people in the country behind him in doing that for better or worse.  I don't see Trump taking the position Nixon did in 1960 of not contesting the election results with a view to preserving the stability of the nation.
These scenarios would be messy, but they don't end in a Trump victory.  The country will survive.  I'm sure that continuity of government planning includes military contingencies for the armed forces to briefly function without a constitutional commander-in-chief during such a transition.  There is no chance of a coup.  They will find their next commander-in-chief and salute him or her and carry on.  As for the rest, the Social Security Administration and everything else will operate on autopilot, as much of the administrative state does every day.

Yes, I quite agree.  COVID-19 has ramped up the conspiracy scenarios regarding whether Trump would peaceably and competently transition power if he loses in November, but the reality is that processes regarding continuity of government are well-established.  If the election is close -- and I suspect it will be -- then both sides will make a lot of noise, but I agree with Pr. Fienen that the sky will not fall no matter who wins.

Welcome, Mr. Gehlhausen! It's been a long time.

Thanks for the welcome!  It's good to be back.

291
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: June 22, 2020, 08:04:30 AM »
I could see him deciding that the election, if close,  was rigged or unfair or otherwise flawed and refusing to leave office.
I do not see that as possible, just as I did not see it as possible when the right-wing nut-cases were saying that Obama was going to stay in office past his second term.  It's nice to see that both sides have those who believe in crazy things.

To be fair, I don't see these as the same thing at all. I don't think there were many who realistically ever thought that Obama would try to secure a third term through manipulation.

On the other hand, if the 2020 election is close, do I see President Trump requesting a recount and using legal means to defend his position?  Yes, and he would have the right to do so. He would have a lot of people in the country behind him in doing that for better or worse.  I don't see Trump taking the position Nixon did in 1960 of not contesting the election results with a view to preserving the stability of the nation.

However, I note that despite all of the "Lock her up" rhetoric during the 2016 election cycle, Trump's first words were surprisingly conciliatory to Hilary Clinton and looking to unite.  I would think that Trump's reaction if defeated in the 2020 election would be similarly realistic.   As others have said, Trump's bark is worse than his bite.   I note that Trump did not have a giant rally planned in 2016, and it seemed he suspected he might lose. If he loses in 2020, then he and his supporters will make noise, but I fully expect Trump will go peacefully. 

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20]