Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes:
Depends on what you’re trying to keep healthy and strong, the WHO or the United States.

I comment:
Explain to me how participating fully in WHO would weaken the United States.

If the WHO is actively protecting China and/or modifying its directives and advice according to the dictates of Communists, then we are better off not trusting them or contributing to them. We influence them more by withholding support (or threatening to) than we do supporting them.

[Charles Austin]

Lord, Peter, I’m glad you are not a diplomat. You would give up your seat at the table because you don’t like who they talk to.
And you didn’t answer my question about how being in the WHO weakens the United States.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Engebretson:
As far as the pandemic is concerned he is looking at the possibility of a nationwide mask order, although it is already questioned if he has the legal authority to enforce such a mandate.  Many accept the wearing of masks as part of the way we deal with the spread of the virus.  But a nationwide mandate could very well exacerbate concerns from the other side of the aisle of government overreach.

I comment:
Yeah, that makes sense.
“No government is going to tell me what to do,“ I say. “And maybe wearing a mask will help me and the people around me keep safe from the virus,” I say again, “but dammit, if the government tells me to do it I ain’t gonna do it!”
Are so many of our people really that stupid?

You write:
Many accept the wearing of masks as part of the way we deal with the spread of the virus. 
I comment:
That makes it sound as if there’s something “iffy” or “maybe” about wearing a mask. There isn’t.
Those who will not wear a mask just because the government orders them to do so are stupid.
Those who will not wear a mask just because they think it’s nothing more than a “suggestion” that “might help” are insane.
But we digress.

[peter_speckhard]

Lord, Peter, I’m glad you are not a diplomat. You would give up your seat at the table because you don’t like who they talk to.
And you didn’t answer my question about how being in the WHO weakens the United States.

You're missing the point. It isn't who they talk to, it is who they take orders from or skew their outlook toward. We legitimize and enable that by keeping our seat at the table at all costs.

I don't really care much about the WHO. We can be in or out and it makes me no nevermind, as the kids these days say. Reinstating DACA doesn't bother me in the slightest, either, though it enrages many Trump supporters. Those are standard things whereby you agree or disagree and say, well, elections have consequences. They don't destroy unity. But there will be no unity anyway. His published list of of "day one" executive orders includes reinstating critical race theory training in federal departments (after Trump's order got rid of it) and declaring that all sports, locker rooms, and restrooms (presumably that receive federal funding, so mostly just schools) allow transgender people to select on their basis of self-identification rather than biological sex. Those are fundamental declaration of an official worldview based on nonsense. No conservative will ever support or even tolerate those things even if they affect relatively few people.   

[peter_speckhard]

Those who will not wear a mask just because the government orders them to do so are stupid.
Those who will not wear a mask just because they think it’s nothing more than a “suggestion” that “might help” are insane.
But we digress.

Again, the "but we digress" signals a post that never should have been made. I wear a mask wherever it is required, and not where it is not required. I am neither stupid nor insane.

[Charles Austin]

And I would pin a rose  on you, Peter, but I was referring to the people who won’t   wear masks.
Or for those who make not wearing masks a big make or break big political deal.

[Julio]

Even the malice that some of us feel concerning Trump doesn’t matter here and now.

Wow this sounds encouraging ...

I for one, am glad I will not have to consider Trump’s various inadequacies for very much longer. That is a relief.

You can’t even type one malice free sentence.🤬🤬🤬🤬

[peter_speckhard]

And I would pin a rose  on you, Peter, but I was referring to the people who won’t   wear masks.
Or for those who make not wearing masks a big make or break big political deal.

It seems to me you’re making wearing masks a big make or break political deal. And when you attempt to evaluate cultural divides, you far too easily conclude that people are stupid, insane, racist, or some other easy type of person to disregard. You rarely give even a modicum of evidence that you actually understand the people you disagree with. You just write them off. You’ve learned not to use the word deplorable, but you cling bitterly to the general concept.

[James J Eivan]

In 1960 there was a lot of concern that the Illinois election was crooked (surprise, surprise!).  Richard Nixon was told he should contest it but he said it would harm the country to do so.  It is time for President Trump to think of the nation rather than himself.  It's time for him to be presidential.

It may come to that point the President should do something for the good of the country ... but based on historical precedent, we are not there yet. 

Neither side in 2000 was concerned as the Florida vote litigation proceeded ... if the country was not threaten in 2000, pausing for a bit in an attempt to elevate doubt is definitely in the best interest of the country.

Here endeth the history lesson.😎

Sure hope you mean "alleviate" doubt, as opposed to "elevate" doubt!   

Yup ... ain’t spell/grammar check wonderful ... if it could only realize that ‘fo’ is really ‘of’ everyone would be better off.😶

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
It seems to me you’re making wearing masks a big make or break political deal.
I comment:
No, I don't make it any kind of a political deal. But those who say that ordering masks is a government "overreaching" or who deny the need for masks or who - in their own minds - don't believe the virus is all that bad make it a political deal and threaten public safety. They may be terrific people, lovable and kind and maybe even live with a cat or two, but on this matter, they are being stupid. Or insane. Is like if your teenager asks if he can take the car to New Orleans for Mardi Gras or out west for Burning Man, you say no and when he asks why, you explain why that would be a stupid thing to do.


Peter writes:
And when you attempt to evaluate cultural divides, you far too easily conclude that people are stupid, insane, racist, or some other easy type of person to disregard.
I comment:
See above. And admit that some people in the world are stupid, racist and other bad things.
There's that line from the Academy Award winning song, "Swinging on a Star" which Bing Crosby sang in "Going My Way," in which he crooned "All the monkeys aren't in a zoo; every day you'll meet quite a few." Yeah.

Peter writes:
You rarely give even a modicum of evidence that you actually understand the people you disagree with. You just write them off. You’ve learned not to use the word deplorable, but you cling bitterly to the general concept.
I comment:
And there you go again, pretending to read deeply into my mind. (And my computer has software which can prevent you from doing that, so long as I wear a headset and have a bowl of Cheetos nearby.) Writing off everyone who disagrees with me would be stupid, politically, socially and culturally. But here's a hard fact. There are some I know I must write off because it would not be a good use of my time to attempt to bring them out of their darkness.
They are lost to any blandishments I might offer or ideas I might present.
And, if I feel their attitudes present a clear and present danger to public health or the peaceful social order, and if I feel I must in good conscience reject their attitudes and actions, I will howl about them.
Every pastor has those lapsed members who will not come back to responsible church membership, maybe not even showing up every Christmas and/or Easter. They are religious barbarians and their presence can threaten faith itself.
So it is with some people politically.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pastor Fienen:
However, there was substantial evidence that in this coronavirus pandemic they (the WHO) were more subservient to the will of the Chinese government than to the prompt assistance in understanding and containing the pandemic. That does not assist fulfilling the WHO mission and mandate and needs to be corrected.

Me:
Maybe that’s true, maybe not. But if it is, we can’t correct it if we’re not in the organization, can we?

Depends on what you’re trying to keep healthy and strong, the WHO or the United States.

C. None of the above.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Apparently Biden plans a flurry of executive actions on "Day One" to reverse actions of the Trump presidency. With a thinner majority margin in the House and the possibility that Republicans retain the Senate, it appears that he will exert a lot of quick change via executive order.

But he has a much, much wider margin (in his favor) in the popular vote, than the previous president had. That suggests that the people of the United States would like to see many of Trump's policies changed.

That, of course, is his prerogative, and Trump used the same authority.  But it will be interesting how far he plans to go and if many of his actions will alienate him from the very people with whom he pledged to work toward unity and healing.

He is the President of the United States, not the chair of the Congress. Certainly, he will have to work with congress: the Democrats and Republicans. If he convinces enough of the American people that his plans are good for the country, they can put pressure on their Senators and Representatives to do what is right and good for our nation.

As far as the pandemic is concerned he is looking at the possibility of a nationwide mask order, although it is already questioned if he has the legal authority to enforce such a mandate.  Many accept the wearing of masks as part of the way we deal with the spread of the virus.  But a nationwide mandate could very well exacerbate concerns from the other side of the aisle of government overreach.

I remember when the Federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit in order to conserve gas consumption. If they could do that, I would think that curbing the spread of a virus would be even more important legislation.

Regarding energy policies, he wants to reduce extraction of oil and gas, like directing the Department of the Interior to halt oil and gas leases and fracking on federal lands. I know he wants to move in the direction of the "New Green Deal," and many accept the development of alternative energy sources.  But there's tension here and a lot at stake economically.  I hope he doesn't push it too far too fast. There is a lot of division between Republicans and Democrats on this issue.

I've had relatives and friends who worked in the oil and gas industry. They no longer have their jobs. It certainly wasn't any policies in 2021 that caused them to lose them.

Some of these orders may not have much impact or negative reactions. But, again, if he is serious about restoring unity and bringing healing to divisions, a flurry of actions designed to reverse as much of Trump's policies as possible in a short period of time is going to send the contrary signal that his priority is to erase anything Trump did - and by extension anything others supported that Trump did.

Remember, Trump did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Bided did. You seem to assume that a majority of people approved of what Trump did. I don't think that's true. Rather, his actions (supported by a minority,) caused some of the division were are experiencing.

[John_Hannah]

As we were voting and then watching the almost endless vote count the Coronavirus raged and advanced. The number of infections and hospitalizations grows daily. Very concerning.

Peace, JOHN

[wmattsfield]

Apparently Biden plans a flurry of executive actions on "Day One" to reverse actions of the Trump presidency. With a thinner majority margin in the House and the possibility that Republicans retain the Senate, it appears that he will exert a lot of quick change via executive order.

But he has a much, much wider margin (in his favor) in the popular vote, than the previous president had. That suggests that the people of the United States would like to see many of Trump's policies changed.

That, of course, is his prerogative, and Trump used the same authority.  But it will be interesting how far he plans to go and if many of his actions will alienate him from the very people with whom he pledged to work toward unity and healing.

He is the President of the United States, not the chair of the Congress. Certainly, he will have to work with congress: the Democrats and Republicans. If he convinces enough of the American people that his plans are good for the country, they can put pressure on their Senators and Representatives to do what is right and good for our nation.

As far as the pandemic is concerned he is looking at the possibility of a nationwide mask order, although it is already questioned if he has the legal authority to enforce such a mandate.  Many accept the wearing of masks as part of the way we deal with the spread of the virus.  But a nationwide mandate could very well exacerbate concerns from the other side of the aisle of government overreach.

I remember when the Federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit in order to conserve gas consumption. If they could do that, I would think that curbing the spread of a virus would be even more important legislation.

Regarding energy policies, he wants to reduce extraction of oil and gas, like directing the Department of the Interior to halt oil and gas leases and fracking on federal lands. I know he wants to move in the direction of the "New Green Deal," and many accept the development of alternative energy sources.  But there's tension here and a lot at stake economically.  I hope he doesn't push it too far too fast. There is a lot of division between Republicans and Democrats on this issue.

I've had relatives and friends who worked in the oil and gas industry. They no longer have their jobs. It certainly wasn't any policies in 2021 that caused them to lose them.

Some of these orders may not have much impact or negative reactions. But, again, if he is serious about restoring unity and bringing healing to divisions, a flurry of actions designed to reverse as much of Trump's policies as possible in a short period of time is going to send the contrary signal that his priority is to erase anything Trump did - and by extension anything others supported that Trump did.

Remember, Trump did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Bided did. You seem to assume that a majority of people approved of what Trump did. I don't think that's true. Rather, his actions (supported by a minority,) caused some of the division were are experiencing.

This seem to me to say, "We won. You lost. Unity means agreeing with us." I wonder if there will be an "or else" attached.

[D. Engebretson]

Apparently Biden plans a flurry of executive actions on "Day One" to reverse actions of the Trump presidency. With a thinner majority margin in the House and the possibility that Republicans retain the Senate, it appears that he will exert a lot of quick change via executive order.

But he has a much, much wider margin (in his favor) in the popular vote, than the previous president had. That suggests that the people of the United States would like to see many of Trump's policies changed.

That, of course, is his prerogative, and Trump used the same authority.  But it will be interesting how far he plans to go and if many of his actions will alienate him from the very people with whom he pledged to work toward unity and healing.

He is the President of the United States, not the chair of the Congress. Certainly, he will have to work with congress: the Democrats and Republicans. If he convinces enough of the American people that his plans are good for the country, they can put pressure on their Senators and Representatives to do what is right and good for our nation.

As far as the pandemic is concerned he is looking at the possibility of a nationwide mask order, although it is already questioned if he has the legal authority to enforce such a mandate.  Many accept the wearing of masks as part of the way we deal with the spread of the virus.  But a nationwide mandate could very well exacerbate concerns from the other side of the aisle of government overreach.

I remember when the Federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit in order to conserve gas consumption. If they could do that, I would think that curbing the spread of a virus would be even more important legislation.

Regarding energy policies, he wants to reduce extraction of oil and gas, like directing the Department of the Interior to halt oil and gas leases and fracking on federal lands. I know he wants to move in the direction of the "New Green Deal," and many accept the development of alternative energy sources.  But there's tension here and a lot at stake economically.  I hope he doesn't push it too far too fast. There is a lot of division between Republicans and Democrats on this issue.

I've had relatives and friends who worked in the oil and gas industry. They no longer have their jobs. It certainly wasn't any policies in 2021 that caused them to lose them.

Some of these orders may not have much impact or negative reactions. But, again, if he is serious about restoring unity and bringing healing to divisions, a flurry of actions designed to reverse as much of Trump's policies as possible in a short period of time is going to send the contrary signal that his priority is to erase anything Trump did - and by extension anything others supported that Trump did.

Remember, Trump did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Bided did. You seem to assume that a majority of people approved of what Trump did. I don't think that's true. Rather, his actions (supported by a minority,) caused some of the division were are experiencing.

This seem to me to say, "We won. You lost. Unity means agreeing with us." I wonder if there will be an "or else" attached.

I had a similar sense.  And that was my original point.  If Biden is serious about "unity and healing," which he keeps talking about now as he prepares to assume the mantle of leadership, I am looking for signs that he wants to at least consider where folks are at who do not agree with him.  Popular vote is mentioned.  Trump still received nearly 71 million votes, or 47.7%.  I would hope that Biden is considering that nearly half of America was not prepared to vote for him and adopt his policies.  If he wants to write them off with the now familiar mantra "elections have consequences," then so be it.  But then he should drop the call for unity and healing.