Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[Pr. Terry Culler]

actually the Constitution was not strictly approved by a vote of "the people".  It was approved by conventions in each state.  The members of the conventions were elected in various ways in various states and tended to be the people at the top of the local political/economic hierarchies. 

[David Garner]

If one asks, "What is the will of the people?" the popular vote gives that..

Pr. Engebretson has already made a similar point elsewhere, but:

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of a circular argument.  What does it mean to be "the will of the people"?  Why, that's defined as "the winner of the popular vote."  And how shall we define the significance of "the winner of the popular vote"?  Well, that's defined as "the will of the people."  Why would anyone ever take such foolishness seriously?

"The will of the people" is a populist myth.

Don't you consider the passage of a resolution by a majority vote to be "the will of the people" who voted? If it isn't that, what is it?

The will of the people is expressed in our Constitution as well. And if they don’t like its expression there, they can try to change it.

Where is there a conflict between this present election expressing the will of the people and the Constitution (which was approved by a vote of the people - at least those eligible to vote in 1787-1788)?

There isn't.  The conflict resides in your insistence that the Constitution's provision of a college of electors is in conflict with your narrow and self-serving definition of "the will of the people."

[D. Engebretson]

There are limits to freedom of speech as Wiki notes: Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."*

* van Mill, David (1 January 2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.).

Having been sued at one time under the banner of "libel and slander," I can attest that accusing one of such things and proving it are two very different things.  Sometimes people cry "libel and slander" because information is not supportive or even unflattering to the person who accuses. The press has to make these calls every day, of course, and we want them to be careful in what they report. But I'm concerned that "libel and slander" is quickly becoming a large umbrella under which we put all things distasteful or disagreeable to the offended party. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

I would think the youngest cohort of voters would nearly always skew left/progressive. The things that lend themselves to conservatism-- marriage, children, home ownership-- haven't happened to them yet. The more established one becomes, the more one sees the value of securing what has been established.

If you look at married vs. single, you see married voters trending Trump, single voters trending Biden. Homeowners trending Trump, renters trending Biden. Parents trending Trump, childless trending Biden. Revolutions are always led by the young and/or unattached. The people with one year of experience at a company can push for massive change-- it doesn't hurt them and arguable increases their prospects. The people with 30 years in have little to gain and a lot to lose from massive change.

Notably, many of the things progressives are for are designed to give people the security that normally comes with being rooted without the attendant responsibilities that come with putting down roots. The Julia meme that the Obama administration put out encapsulated it well; liberals loved it, conservatives loathed it.

The opposite also happens. As conservatives age and go through more diverse experiences, their narrow view of the world can expand. Their certainties becomes less certain, etc. When I was a young 20-something traveling on gospel teams (1969-1972,) playing guitars and tambourines during worship service (and having a beard,) it was seldom the oldsters who complained about this new style of music in church. They had seen different fads come and go, they could live through another one. When there was opposition, is was usually the 30-50 age group. We heard that one man said before even coming into church, "If any of them has a beard and is playing guitar, I'm leaving." He left. At another church, where I was serving as pastor, I heard that when one of the ladies, sitting in a back row, complained about my beard, another lady, in the same age bracket, told her to look at the picture of Jesus that was hanging in the nave.


Although, being ALC, none of my seminary classmates would be in quite the same conservative camp as LCMS seminarians, but one thing that was stated at different alumni gatherings is how we were mellowing with age and years of ministry.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If one asks, "What is the will of the people?" the popular vote gives that..

Pr. Engebretson has already made a similar point elsewhere, but:

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of a circular argument.  What does it mean to be "the will of the people"?  Why, that's defined as "the winner of the popular vote."  And how shall we define the significance of "the winner of the popular vote"?  Well, that's defined as "the will of the people."  Why would anyone ever take such foolishness seriously?

"The will of the people" is a populist myth.

Don't you consider the passage of a resolution by a majority vote to be "the will of the people" who voted? If it isn't that, what is it?

The will of the people is expressed in our Constitution as well. And if they don’t like its expression there, they can try to change it.

Where is there a conflict between this present election expressing the will of the people and the Constitution (which was approved by a vote of the people - at least those eligible to vote in 1787-1788)?

There isn't.  The conflict resides in your insistence that the Constitution's provision of a college of electors is in conflict with your narrow and self-serving definition of "the will of the people."

Good, because that wasn't the point I was trying to make (and apparently failed). I have no problem with the electoral college. That is the way we elect our president. I'm stating that in normal, parliamentary procedures, a majority vote expresses the will of the people who voted. That doesn't mean that a resolution will be approved. The first time the ELCA Churchwide Assembly voted on a full communion agreement with The Episcopal Church, a majority approved it, but to pass it required a 2/3 majority and it failed that by 6 votes.


On the other hand, the votes related in sexuality in 2009 all passed. The one on the Social Statement required 2/3 majority. Accompanying resolutions on ministry only required a majority. The votes expressed the will of the people - at least those who were the voting members at that assembly. If a vote had been taken of all the three million or so confirmed members at that time, the results might have been different, but that isn't how the ELCA makes decisions.


If one wants to know the "will of the people," it is usually done by having the people vote. Majority rule is not always the way decisions are made. Sometimes 2/3 majority or 60% or representatives or a select group of voting members who make decisions for the whole body.

[Norman Teigen]

I like to read about relics and how pious believers felt that they might get closer to God if they possessed relics from the life of Jesus and the Saints.  A hilarious parody of this situation is Christopher Buckley 's 'The Relic Master' which I have as an audio book on my devices.  Now a relic from 45's  Presidency has been made available.  It's a Bible signed by (45).  This piece was in The New Yorker section. The Talk of the Town in the November 2, 2020 issue.  " 'The 5.5 x 8.5 in. King James version is a 1,002pp. edition published by Christian Art publishers, 2016.  The cover and spine are black faux calf, with titles on spine and cover in embossed gold.'  The [consignor's  blurb] mentions how Trump held up a Bible this past spring for his controversial photo op in front of St. John's Church. But this isn't that one.  The auction house's opening bid was five thousand dollars....[The consignor] said that if the Trump Bible had been the one from the St. John's photo op he'd have asked for a hundred grand, instead of merely five.  Because history.  He had urged the consignor to put the Bible up for sale before the election, in the event Trump loses."   

So, the takeaway is that Trump losing the election means that collectors will lose money on relics from his Presidency.   

[Brian Stoffregen]

'James'...  "Government indoctrinators?"  Are you serious?  Come on, Man.

Teaching youth to think for themselves must be "government indoctrination." It might conflict with the indoctrination the parents have imposed on their children.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Big tech, those giants of the relatively new and emerging industries that are heavily invested in the internet, were known to have supported the Biden in a big way.  They came under a bit of fire during the campaign, especially on issues of how much information should be limited (although media often uses the word "censor," even though it is sometimes pointed out here that is more properly used of government). A notorious case involved the NY Post story on Biden.  There has been a push from some quarters to clamp down on so-called hate groups and misinformation.  But who defines that can be tricky.  I'm sure we all know at least one person who ended up in "Facebook jail" because they ran afoul of the algorithms on that platform designed to control information. From some perspectives it often feels rather arbitrary.  In other cases biased. I've dodged that since I am relatively apolitical on FB.

Trump utilized Twitter heavily during his tenure and I'm sure all campaigns relied greatly on social media this time around, especially during the pandemic when in-person approaches were limited. But in the latter part of his presidency Twitter started attaching warnings to his tweets.  It has appeared that Big Tech has been more supportive of liberal endeavors than that of conservative ones.  The heads of these companies, I'm sure most will agree, are not icons of the right.

It will be interesting, going forward, to see how the Biden administration deals with the internet and the various social media platforms that have become major vehicles for information and news.  Biden wants to build broadband infrastructure for communities that currently lack it, which I applaud, since I live in a very rural area. 

Under the Trump administration an antitrust lawsuit was launched against Google. I would think that antitrust efforts might appeal to both sides, but I'll be curious to see if he pushes hard against some of the folks who gave him so much political support leading up to the White House. 

Another area that might bring about some bipartisan cooperation, although for different reasons, is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law provides tech companies immunity from lawsuits over what people post to their sites. Yet it also leaves the choice to take down or flag content at the sole discretion of the companies. I'll be interested to see if Biden takes a lead here, or backs away.

I hope that Biden can show bipartisan interest in issues concerning Big Tech, especially the critical area of the free flow of information. Having these companies serve as a 'censors' deciding what is truth and what is fiction, removes from the reader/consumer the right and responsibility to do the hard work of their own investigation.

Could it be that more of the conservative posts didn't pass the fact-checking scrutiny and were removed than the those posted in favor of Biden?


The fire against Facebook and Twitter, as I remember it, was about how much false information should they allow on their sites. That was one way that Russia meddled in the 2016 election: the spreading of false information on social media.


There are limits to freedom of speech as Wiki notes: Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."*

* van Mill, David (1 January 2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.).

What is false information differs on who wants that information contained and who is reporting it. The NT Post article on Biden emails was the most celebrated. The reported emails did belong to Hunter Biden. Tony Bobulinski former business partner of Hunter, also offered corroborating information.  We can choose to decide none of this is newsworthy or relevant; we may differ on the significance of the facts, but there were facts that were suppressed. Tucker Carlson's interview was virtually ignored by the main networks. This is a free press issue.  We can ignore it, but we should trust our citizens to evaluate sources and information and come to their own conclusions.  I see this incident as a major concern with regard to the future of what is controlled, especially in social media venues.

I never saw the fact that it was Hunter Biden's laptop suppressed. It seems that what was found on it wasn't newsworthy nor criminal.

[David Garner]

'James'...  "Government indoctrinators?"  Are you serious?  Come on, Man.

Teaching youth to think for themselves must be "government indoctrination." It might conflict with the indoctrination the parents have imposed on their children.

Government schools did not teach me to think for myself.  I learned that skill somewhat in college (in opposition to the professors, which was still something that was allowed back then), and mostly in law school.

[D. Engebretson]

Big tech, those giants of the relatively new and emerging industries that are heavily invested in the internet, were known to have supported the Biden in a big way.  They came under a bit of fire during the campaign, especially on issues of how much information should be limited (although media often uses the word "censor," even though it is sometimes pointed out here that is more properly used of government). A notorious case involved the NY Post story on Biden.  There has been a push from some quarters to clamp down on so-called hate groups and misinformation.  But who defines that can be tricky.  I'm sure we all know at least one person who ended up in "Facebook jail" because they ran afoul of the algorithms on that platform designed to control information. From some perspectives it often feels rather arbitrary.  In other cases biased. I've dodged that since I am relatively apolitical on FB.

Trump utilized Twitter heavily during his tenure and I'm sure all campaigns relied greatly on social media this time around, especially during the pandemic when in-person approaches were limited. But in the latter part of his presidency Twitter started attaching warnings to his tweets.  It has appeared that Big Tech has been more supportive of liberal endeavors than that of conservative ones.  The heads of these companies, I'm sure most will agree, are not icons of the right.

It will be interesting, going forward, to see how the Biden administration deals with the internet and the various social media platforms that have become major vehicles for information and news.  Biden wants to build broadband infrastructure for communities that currently lack it, which I applaud, since I live in a very rural area. 

Under the Trump administration an antitrust lawsuit was launched against Google. I would think that antitrust efforts might appeal to both sides, but I'll be curious to see if he pushes hard against some of the folks who gave him so much political support leading up to the White House. 

Another area that might bring about some bipartisan cooperation, although for different reasons, is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law provides tech companies immunity from lawsuits over what people post to their sites. Yet it also leaves the choice to take down or flag content at the sole discretion of the companies. I'll be interested to see if Biden takes a lead here, or backs away.

I hope that Biden can show bipartisan interest in issues concerning Big Tech, especially the critical area of the free flow of information. Having these companies serve as a 'censors' deciding what is truth and what is fiction, removes from the reader/consumer the right and responsibility to do the hard work of their own investigation.

Could it be that more of the conservative posts didn't pass the fact-checking scrutiny and were removed than the those posted in favor of Biden?


The fire against Facebook and Twitter, as I remember it, was about how much false information should they allow on their sites. That was one way that Russia meddled in the 2016 election: the spreading of false information on social media.


There are limits to freedom of speech as Wiki notes: Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."*

* van Mill, David (1 January 2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.).

What is false information differs on who wants that information contained and who is reporting it. The NT Post article on Biden emails was the most celebrated. The reported emails did belong to Hunter Biden. Tony Bobulinski former business partner of Hunter, also offered corroborating information.  We can choose to decide none of this is newsworthy or relevant; we may differ on the significance of the facts, but there were facts that were suppressed. Tucker Carlson's interview was virtually ignored by the main networks. This is a free press issue.  We can ignore it, but we should trust our citizens to evaluate sources and information and come to their own conclusions.  I see this incident as a major concern with regard to the future of what is controlled, especially in social media venues.

I never saw the fact that it was Hunter Biden's laptop suppressed. It seems that what was found on it wasn't newsworthy nor criminal.

It was largely ignored by the major press.  FB and Twitter deliberately tried to limit the exposure of the NY Post article.  Now some may have found it lacking in being newsworthy and that nothing seemed out of order.  I, however, think there was credible material worthy of further investigation and hope that someone in the justice department is seeing that this is done.

[Charles Austin]

A former assistant in the attorney generals office has said that the president’s refusal to deal with the transition presents a security risk for the nation because it deprives Biden of access to critical information and proper time to prepare for becoming the president.
He also said that the Attorney General Barr’s order to involve his office in the investigations about voter fraud breaks a 40 year policy of the attorney generals office, in which it is made clear that the office will not Investigate elections in ways that would suggest a political motive or cast doubt on the validity of the election. That would be determined after all aspects of the election are completed.
Finally the veteran attorney in the attorney general’s office who would normally deal with such things has resigned from his position, but not from the AG office, after Attorney General Barr’s actions, And by the way, Barr has said that he has not seen any evidence of serious voter fraud.
When will honest Republicans With access to the president or any adult who might still be in the White House or near the president tell him that this is over? His selfish petulance is actually hurting the nation.

[peter_speckhard]

A former assistant in the attorney generals office has said that the president’s refusal to deal with the transition presents a security risk for the nation because it deprives Biden of access to critical information and proper time to prepare for becoming the president.
He also said that the Attorney General Barr’s order to involve his office in the investigations about voter fraud breaks a 40 year policy of the attorney generals office, in which it is made clear that the office will not Investigate elections in ways that would suggest a political motive or cast doubt on the validity of the election. That would be determined after all aspects of the election are completed.
Finally the veteran attorney in the attorney general’s office who would normally deal with such things has resigned from his position, but not from the AG office, after Attorney General Barr’s actions, And by the way, Barr has said that he has not seen any evidence of serious voter fraud.
When will honest Republicans With access to the president or any adult who might still be in the White House or near the president tell him that this is over? His selfish petulance is actually hurting the nation.

No it isn’t. The system is working. No official timeline has been changed. If there is nothing to see, nothing will be seen. This country is not so frail that it can’t withstand scrutiny of elections. And if somehow it turns out that Trump won the election once the illegal votes are discounted, I’m sure you will be glad for further legal scrutiny rather than demanding Biden concede for the good of the nation.

I think the most interesting possibilities of significant voter fraud will not come from finding dead or non-existent voters. If fraud is there it will show up from statistical analysis of the results showing extremely suspicious data outside the realm of reasonable mathematical possibility.

[Randy Bosch]

When will honest Republicans With access to the president or any adult who might still be in the White House or near the president tell him that this is over? His selfish petulance is actually hurting the nation.

1. Al Gore didn't concede until more than 30 days after what used to be known as "Election Day".
2. "Conceding" is not in the Constitution.
3. "Conceding" does not end the lawful count of ballots, their certification by each State, or the action of the Electoral College.
4.  If Joe Biden won, it doesn't matter if Don Trump concedes or not.
5.  What is the history of transition cooperation?  Trump didn't get much of it in 2016-17 from the outgoing Administration, and it showed.  In my opinion, absolute cooperation and transparency is essential, except that I don't think it is either wise or lawful to share the nuclear codes, provide open access to ongoing negotiations for hostage releases, to open the book on active military operations, to pick rather globally relevant examples, until we officially have a new President installed.

Other than that, do you personally know any honest Republicans or adults in the White House?

If you do, perhaps a worthwhile thing to do for the sake of not hurting the nation is to encourage them to act responsibly to carry out the law of the land including acts of civil mercy for the hurting.

[mj4]

What is the history of transition cooperation?  Trump didn't get much of it in 2016-17 from the outgoing Administration, and it showed. 

I recall a recent news report that suggested that the incoming Trump administration was ill prepared to receive the cooperation of the Obama administration. When President-elect Trump fired former Gov. Chris Christie during the transition, the whole process fell apart. Obama staffers would go to a scheduled transition meeting only to find out that there would be no Trump administration counterpart with whom to meet. It showed.

[Dan Fienen]

I would think the youngest cohort of voters would nearly always skew left/progressive. The things that lend themselves to conservatism-- marriage, children, home ownership-- haven't happened to them yet. The more established one becomes, the more one sees the value of securing what has been established.

If you look at married vs. single, you see married voters trending Trump, single voters trending Biden. Homeowners trending Trump, renters trending Biden. Parents trending Trump, childless trending Biden. Revolutions are always led by the young and/or unattached. The people with one year of experience at a company can push for massive change-- it doesn't hurt them and arguable increases their prospects. The people with 30 years in have little to gain and a lot to lose from massive change.

Notably, many of the things progressives are for are designed to give people the security that normally comes with being rooted without the attendant responsibilities that come with putting down roots. The Julia meme that the Obama administration put out encapsulated it well; liberals loved it, conservatives loathed it.

The opposite also happens. As conservatives age and go through more diverse experiences, their narrow view of the world can expand. Their certainties becomes less certain, etc. When I was a young 20-something traveling on gospel teams (1969-1972,) playing guitars and tambourines during worship service (and having a beard,) it was seldom the oldsters who complained about this new style of music in church. They had seen different fads come and go, they could live through another one. When there was opposition, is was usually the 30-50 age group. We heard that one man said before even coming into church, "If any of them has a beard and is playing guitar, I'm leaving." He left. At another church, where I was serving as pastor, I heard that when one of the ladies, sitting in a back row, complained about my beard, another lady, in the same age bracket, told her to look at the picture of Jesus that was hanging in the nave.


Although, being ALC, none of my seminary classmates would be in quite the same conservative camp as LCMS seminarians, but one thing that was stated at different alumni gatherings is how we were mellowing with age and years of ministry.

I think that it is more accurate to say that the young generations, the late teens and twenty somethings tend to be more rigid in their thinking than those who have more experience and seen the need for more flexibility in thinking. That may mean that the young are more rigid in their progressive ideology or conservative ideology. The young also tend to be more impatient. It is from younger legislators and younger people that the demand for a rapid transition to a zero carbon economy has arisen. Do it now, no matter what the cost (they're used to others footing the cost for what they want) or the impracticalities involved. I remember back in the 90s (I think) that the standing joke was that the aging hippies from the 60s who were now in their 40s or 50s, early 60s were appalled at their super buttoned down, conservative teenaged children. Think Michael J. Fox in Family Ties. (It was also the aging boomers who insisted on contemporary worship "for the sake of the youth" who actually were rarely as interested as their boomer elders. The boomers insisted that the young wanted what the boomers had wanted when they were that age.)