Election 2020

[James J Eivan]

Peter, my definition of irrational in this context relates to only one thing, a Republican being in lockstep with Trump.
If you are a Republican in lockstep with Trump, you are not rational. If you are willing to oppose him on some matters, you are rational.
Now my definition of rational in this context might soon be unnecessary, deo volante .

Moderators:  I implore you to do something about these repeated ad hominems which have been on long-standing embarrassment to this forum.  The insulting hubris exhibited in this post does not foster dialog, it's just putting people for the fun of it.  Why do I find this post particularly problematic?  Just imagine how the poster would react if someone said exactly this about his side.

It's been a common accusation that any Republican in office who does not denounce (or vote to impeach/convict) Trump is in "lockstep" with him.  Such accusations have no substance.

STERLING,

It seems to that this example is not ad hominem. It is an exaggeration, clearly a false one. But is no different than asserting that all Dems are part of antifa and are socialists. That is also false but not ad hominem.   

Peace, JOHN

Please go to www.antifa.com ... to prove your post is totally incorrect. Today they are fund raising for the Dems👹

Sterling ... there are those of us who use the Report to Moderator function to report decorum abuse such as this.

Far too often via pm (Including again this morning) I have to encourage forum members to continue contributing to the forum ... they are discouraged about this type of abusive posting ... in addition to having less abusive posts censored.

Apparently the desire of some is to drive us away so that this is an echo chamber without opposition. You leave ... they win🤭🤔

[mariemeyer]

Today's letter to the congregation (the 136th such letter of the Covid era).

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. I Tim. 2:1-4

As of this writing nothing has officially been called, but it appears likely that we will have a new president in January. Our St. Paul’s school vote last week once again prognosticated the results more accurately than the professional pollsters. Assuming the kids tend to vote the way their family votes, that means our community mirrors the nation in many ways. It also means that, just as was the case in 2016, many of those families are jubilant and many are hurting or angry. Yet we remain one community, one family.

It can be incredibly difficult to get along with someone who is happy about the very thing that is making you angry, or someone who is disdainful or dismissive of the thing that is making you happy. It doesn’t even have to be anything really important. I remember in my first year of ministry watching the Super Bowl with a whole houseful of my parishioners. My team, the Packers, was favored to beat the Broncos. But my host and most of the other guests were Bears fans who simply wanted the Packers to lose; they were not fans of the other team, they were anti-Packer fans. And the Packers did get upset in a close game. That was one of the least enjoyable social gatherings I can remember, because I was “mourning among those who laugh” so to speak, and they were laughing at those who mourn. We were all friends, of course, but that evening didn’t do much to strengthen any relationships. And that was only football. Think if it had been something more important.

“Elections have consequences,” has become a well-worn phrase over the past ten years or so. But one of those consequences should not involve personal relationships, and none of those consequences can possibly rise to the level of the spiritual. The consequences involve various worldly, public policies. In his letter to St. Timothy, St. Paul puts politics and government in the context of the much more important mission of the Church. Good government is a gift, part of the daily bread for which we pray. We render that gift bitter we allow it to pit people against each other, especially in a Christian congregation. We have more important things. We pray for good government because good government makes it easier to lead a Christian life and dedicate ourselves to bringing people to the knowledge of the Truth of Jesus Christ.

This morning in our school chapel service I read from Romans about the role of secular government and these verses from I Timothy 2. Then during the sermon I re-read them and asked the students to shout out “Stop!” whenever they thought I was changing the words or adding anything. I then re-read the passage over and over, but kept saying things like, “I urge then that prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in a high position as long as they deserve our respect…” Or, “…thanksgivings be made for all Democrats (or Republicans)…” or “I urge that you join the resistance and curse the leaders you didn’t vote for….” There were a lot of shouting Stop! But we need to hear the sound of that shouting not merely in our ears but in our interior thoughts. With our lips it is easy to honor the Scriptural admonition even while our hearts are far from heeding it.

St. Paul’s is not a political place. We aren’t defined by whether we vote Republican or Democrat. Such affinities do not form the basis of our relationship. Regardless of how things go this week, we will continue to pray for all who are in authority no matter what anyone’s personal opinion about how worthy an authority he or she is.

We will continue to pray for the gift of good government, remembering that we are not worthy of the things for which we pray, nor have we deserved them, but we ask that God would give them all to us by grace. We will continue to focus on our real mission of preaching and teaching Christ crucified and risen. We will remain a family comprised of all kinds of people with all kinds of reactions to worldly things like elections while remembering that our true citizenship is in heaven. Our trust remains in the King of kings and Lord of lords. Whether you feel like you won or lost this week, thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ.

In His service, Pastor Speckhard

Suggest it is time for everyone who posts here to reread the above.  I quote "St. Paul’s is not a political place. We aren’t defined by whether we vote Republican or Democrat. Such affinities do not form the basis of our relationship. Regardless of how things go this week, we will continue to pray for all who are in authority no matter what anyone’s personal opinion about how worthy an authority he or she is."

IMO, the ALPB Forum is not primarily a political place.  It is a place where brothers in Christ listen to one another and respond with a degree of charity in all matters, including political. 

Marie Meyer

[James J Eivan]

Remove the electoral college and the big cities will rule.  That's a nightmare to a country boy like me.

The day before election day in 2016 President Barack Obama proved beyond a doubt why the electoral college was important.

Where was he campaigning… On the day before elections? In the greatly populated state of New Hampshire… Because it had a sum total of three electoral votes.

If that is not proof of why we need the electoral college… Nothing is!

Look at the number of times candidates were in New Hampshire this year. Again proof the electoral college is necessary…and works.

[JEdwards]

Remove the electoral college and the big cities will rule.  That's a nightmare to a country boy like me.

I find it interesting that arguments in favor of the electoral college (which I think have some merit) are similar in many ways to arguments in favor of quotas or affirmative action, in that both value some structural obstacle to pure majoritarianism in decision making for the sake of ensuring that folks with dramatically different experiences, living situations, and perspectives all get to have some meaningful voice in important decisions.  And yet, some of the strongest supporters of the EC are opponents of quotas, and vice-versa.

Peace,
Jon

[Coach-Rev]

Mr. Spatz, my “side“ has been called ultra left-wing, socialist, communist, heretics, Bible-deniers, baby killers, advocates of street violence, anti-police and worse, (if there were anything worse). And I do not name in my criticism in this case on any particular person. I have not added, as it were, a hominid.
So the fact that I suggested some Republicans are irrational on one point of concern doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

So you are going with the defense that "well, their side does it too?!"  Coming from the one who constantly complains about, derides, posts nasty and derogatory things about, and ridicules those who make such a defense, this is rich.  (And completely expected, I might add).  Charles, you wonder why few take you seriously here?  It's because of your incessant hypocrisy on all things not-Charles-Austin.  You have done nothing but bombard us for 4 years with all of the current president's "Lies," and yet you have said nothing - NOTHING - about the frequent lies told by your side.  Case in point:  you ignore the Hunter Biden deal and dismiss it entirely, and you say nothing of all the flip flops between primary statements and election cycle statements by your candidate, the Biden/Harris ticket.

And as for you replying to my now-deleted post (fascinating that I get deleted and your response stands), IT WAS A JOKE.   IT WAS SAID IN JEST.  Or did the little wink emoji escape your view?  But no, you had to, in violation of your own agreement of ignoring one another, throw yet another barb out, because it's simply who you are.

I will guarantee you that if the electoral college ever has serious consideration to being abolished, you will see a civil war in this country the likes of which the world has never seen.  Every EC map for the past 20 or more years shows how divided this country is politically - its rural versus suburban.

And yet, some of the strongest supporters of the EC are opponents of quotas, and vice-versa.

Peace,
Jon

That's because in large measure, "quotas" happen naturally when you don't display or harbor racist tendencies.  Our own mission district (Great Plains/NALC) is far more diverse without even trying than any synod, conference, or cluster I was a part of in the ELCA.  In fact, I took part in both the ordination of the Oromo Congregation's pastor, and the dedication of their building, which our youth group did a mission trip to help paint 3 years ago.

[Charles Austin]

JEdwards writes:
I find it interesting that arguments in favor of the electoral college (which I think have some merit) are similar in many ways to arguments in favor of quotas or affirmative action, in that both value some structural obstacle to pure majoritarianism in decision making for the sake of ensuring that folks with dramatically different experiences, living situations, and perspectives all get to have some meaningful voice in important decisions.  And yet, some of the strongest supporters of the EC are opponents of quotas, and vice-versa.
I respond:
Yes, curious indeed. The Electoral College is a type of quota system.

To Pastor Cottingham:
You write :So you are going with the defense that "well, their side does it too?!"
I respond:
No, I’m saying my response does not do that.
And I have not discussed Hunter Biden because I believe the allegations against him are a bucket of horse poop. And should that horse have excreted a moderately-priced gem of truth which is deep down in that poop bucket, there have been no credible links to the candidate. Meanwhile the lies and verbal atrocities repeatedly blurted and bloviated by your guy are verified and come from the one who wants to keep lying to us for the next four years (or more, if his trend toward an imitation of Mussolini or Putin continues).

To Peter:
I wonder if you could forgo the pleasure of long-distance psychoanalysis. My world is not frightening. It is not shaped by terrors of BLM, antifa, socialism, science and “liberalism”.

[Coach-Rev]

thank you for proving my point.  Again.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Should states revise how their electoral college votes are cast. In many states, a red/blue map of the counties shows that a few counties in the urban, suburban areas can overshadow the many counties in rural areas. Undoubtedly, there are many more red counties than blue counties, but because of population disparity, blue can win the state. Of course, we are reminded that land areas don't vote, people do.


If the electoral college votes in each state were divided, as close as possible, to the percentage of votes the major candidates received, the presidential election might better reflect the will of the people.

[JEdwards]

Should states revise how their electoral college votes are cast. In many states, a red/blue map of the counties shows that a few counties in the urban, suburban areas can overshadow the many counties in rural areas. Undoubtedly, there are many more red counties than blue counties, but because of population disparity, blue can win the state. Of course, we are reminded that land areas don't vote, people do.


If the electoral college votes in each state were divided, as close as possible, to the percentage of votes the major candidates received, the presidential election might better reflect the will of the people.

Each state presumably picks the allocation system that it believes best represents its interests as a state.  In most cases, that seems to be winner-take-all.  But this year's results provide an interesting potential counterexample.  Under winner-take-all, I doubt anyone would have given Nebraska a second thought.  As it turned out, the availability of a single electoral vote prompted both campaigns to pay some attention to Omaha, and that single EV looks like it might be decisive.

[Charles Austin]

But your “point,” Pastor Cottingham, is rarely on topic and mostly about what you believe to be true about me.
I’ll ignore you if you lay off the personal.

Now on topic:
So it looks like we might know everything by tomorrow night.

[Randy Bosch]

Should states revise how their electoral college votes are cast. In many states, a red/blue map of the counties shows that a few counties in the urban, suburban areas can overshadow the many counties in rural areas. Undoubtedly, there are many more red counties than blue counties, but because of population disparity, blue can win the state. Of course, we are reminded that land areas don't vote, people do.


If the electoral college votes in each state were divided, as close as possible, to the percentage of votes the major candidates received, the presidential election might better reflect the will of the people.

That may reflect the voters in a Presidential election.  Isn't the desire to reflect the will of the people, not just those who are willing and able to vote?  Aren't electoral votes distributed on the basis of population from the previous census via Congressional representation?   Isn't the will of the people taken into account by their elected State Legislators when they redistrict after each Federal Census?  Isn't the issue of gerrymandering (by whichever Party controls the State Legislature) as much as an issue?  Will there be a "Dark Winter" ahead (which may be decided by the outcome of Presidential and Congressional elections as much as the actual state of COVID-19, though perhaps without regard to city versus rural infection rates and all required to conform to the worst condition)?  Will the Dodgers and Lakers win again in 2021?

[Coach-Rev]

But your “point,” Pastor Cottingham, is rarely on topic and mostly about what you believe to be true about me.
I’ll ignore you if you lay off the personal.

Now on topic:
So it looks like we might know everything by tomorrow night.

Charles, the last 4 replies prior to this exchange that you made to me were AFTER you pledged a reciprocal "ignore" agreement, and were all responses made to which I made no mention of you.  So it is not I that needs a lecture on "laying off the personal."

[Brian Stoffregen]

That's because in large measure, "quotas" happen naturally when you don't display or harbor racist tendencies.  Our own mission district (Great Plains/NALC) is far more diverse without even trying than any synod, conference, or cluster I was a part of in the ELCA.  In fact, I took part in both the ordination of the Oromo Congregation's pastor, and the dedication of their building, which our youth group did a mission trip to help paint 3 years ago.

Racial diversity doesn't happen "naturally" among Lutherans. For generations, descendants from Scandinavian and Germany kept apart from each other. Often building two or more Lutheran congregations in one small town. When a Swede married a Norwegian, it was considered a "mixed marriage." I was told by an Italian who had married a Finn that it had been illegal for a Finn to marry a Caucasian.


Even in your example, a new Oromo congregation was created to reach the Oromo people. They were not incorporated into an already existing (white) congregation. I also wonder how many white people are members of their congregation. Actually, since the Oromo ancestors, the Cushites, go back to the time of Noah, and there was an Ethiopian convert in Acts, they have had Christianity much longer than Northern Europe. Perhaps we all should be joining their congregations.

[D. Engebretson]

Now on topic:
So it looks like we might know everything by tomorrow night.

We may in some ways have a good sense of where the result probably lies, but there are weeks if not months, of legal challenges ahead. 

[Norman Teigen]

Wise words, Marie Meyer.   Thank you. I offer an example of words of healing and reconciliation between Benjamin Franklin and his son William. The two were on opposite sides in the American Revolution .  When the War was over, the elder Franklin wrote to his son. (August 16, 1784 -my source is the LOA Franklin collection of letters and papers):  "I ought not to blame you for differing in Sentiment with me in Public Affairs.  We are Men, all subject to Errors. Our Opinions are not in our own Power; they are form'd and govern'd as much by Circumstances, that are often as inexplicable as they are irresistible.  Your Situation was such that few would have censured your remaining Neuter, tho' there are Natural Duties which precede political ones, and cannot be extinguish'd by them.  This is a disagreeable subject.  I drop it.  And we will endeavor, as you propose mutually to forget what has happened relating it as well as we can."

I hope that ALPB Forum members might do likewise. God bless us all.