Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[D. Engebretson]

Although not impacting the election is a direct way, I find the Supreme Court deliberations on the ACA interesting in light of Democratic fears that conservative members in that chamber are going to undo everything held dear to progressives. Just before the election one last justice was appointed to replace RBG, and given her conservative credentials the talk then started of 'packing the court' to enlarge it as to restore a more liberal balance, or influence.

Yet in the current arguments it appears that although the mandate to buy insurance could be removed or struck down, that does not mean that the justices are going to dissolve the ACA altogether.  One argument is that Congress had the opportunity to strike down the ACA in its entirety and did not, signalling to the court - or some members of it - that they were looking to the court itself to do that.  The justices, in a move that reflects the conservative values that supported them, want to be justices, not legislators. 

It may not be seen in any way as a victory for Republicans, but I like the reasoning so far in that the court wishes to adjudicate, not legislate, something the court in previous times has not always been inclined to do.

[Dan Fienen]

I think we will have to try to understand some of the truly (and valid) hard feelings that some will have about those who have enabled the president for the past four years. We don't have to declare them "right," we don't have to listen to all of them, but we have to understand why and how they feel the way they do.
Personally, were I in a position to encounter or employ or otherwise endorse someone who had been in the Trump administration, I would ask a ton of questions about what they did in that administration, why they did it and whether they agreed with everything they did. I do not think that is unreasonable.

I can not help but marvel at how much stigmatizing those who were a part of or supported the previous duly elected administration will do to foster reconciliation and bringing this country together. Asking such people a ton of questions and treating them with suspicion will naturally foster good will and cooperation with the incoming administration and make those whose candidates lost in the last election feel that they are a valued part of this nation rather than conquered people who will be only grudgingly granted a place in the nation. After all, they will need to be rehabilitated. After all, they will need to recover from their errors.

P.S to Mr. Garner:
I understand the feelings of those who think the president was unfairly treated. I disagree with them and hope they will recover soon. I won’t and can’t change how they feel. I can ask them, for the good of the country, to work fairly with those now in office, not - if they think this is the situation - “returning evil for evil”. (Romans 12:17)

Presumptive President Elect Biden may be ready to bring the nation together in peace and unity but I fear some of his devotees, even on this forum, are not so ready to let go of their grievances.

[Pr. Don Kirchner]

After all, they will need to be rehabilitated. After all, they will need to recover from their errors.

Re-education? Perhaps through labor? "They have to be broken, burned down and rebuilt. When Biden is in power treat them like the active threats to democracy they are. If those who committed crimes aren't punished then they will be more emboldened."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-education_through_labor

After all, the incoming administration has some familiarity with China and its systems.

[Charles Austin]

I wonder, Pastor Fienen, how it was with call committees or interviews for perspective pastors in your synod for the 5, 10 or 15 years following the schism of the 1970s. Don’t you think candidates might’ve been asked where they were and what they did from 1969 to 1975? I know some Seminex graduates got calls within the Missouri Synod. I know some were refused calls. Isn’t where one was and what one did during a certain period of time relevant for employment?

[Pr. Terry Culler]

I wonder, Pastor Fienen, how it was with call committees or interviews for perspective pastors in your synod for the 5, 10 or 15 years following the schism of the 1970s. Don’t you think candidates might’ve been asked where they were and what they did from 1969 to 1975? I know some Seminex graduates got calls within the Missouri Synod. I know some were refused calls. Isn’t where one was and what one did during a certain period of time relevant for employment?

Maybe if you would list some of the "ton" of questions you want answered it would help the discussion.  Frankly this "cancel culture" stuff is way too Nazi like for my taste.  The left is quite frankly totalitarian in their view points and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them don't quietly admire the Chinese communist treatment of Uighurs and others including our Christian brothers and sisters.  You have called Trump "authoritarian" and "dictatorial"--yet he has never called for such behavior insofar as I am aware. 

[Charles Austin]

Right now, Pastor Fienen, I am ready to set aside past grievances, for he will be out of office soon.
But we have some current grievances.
-the filing of frivolous lawsuits,
-the refusal to fund the President-Elect’s transition team and denying the President-Elect access to security briefings and appropriate help from the State Department
-idiotic “orders” to government agencies to get ready for his February budget
-setting aside all care for and work on combatting the virus
-tweeting lies and nonsense
Let’s focus on though.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Culler:
The left is quite frankly totalitarian in their view points and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them don't quietly admire the Chinese communist treatment of Uighurs and others including our Christian brothers and sisters.  You have called Trump "authoritarian" and "dictatorial"--yet he has never called for such behavior insofar as I am aware.
Me:
I can’t or won’t try to change your what I consider consider your erroneous fear of the left or answer your apparently knee-shaking fear of the left.
But you don’t have to go as far as the Chinese have gone in order to be dictatorial or authoritarian or even totalitarian.

[Dan Fienen]

I wonder, Pastor Fienen, how it was with call committees or interviews for perspective pastors in your synod for the 5, 10 or 15 years following the schism of the 1970s. Don’t you think candidates might’ve been asked where they were and what they did from 1969 to 1975? I know some Seminex graduates got calls within the Missouri Synod. I know some were refused calls. Isn’t where one was and what one did during a certain period of time relevant for employment?

So, Seminex is not quite forgotten yet.


You make the comparison of those who walked out of the seminary which had called them to teach or in which they had enrolled in defiance of the administration that had been properly and legally established to govern that institution and in defiance of the the church body and its teachings which had established the seminary and administered it and the properly elected administration of that church body to form a rogue seminary that claimed governance independent of the church body and sought to prepare pastors for that church body independent of the church body and not subject to that church body's supervision to those who worked for the Trump administration.

Those who attended Seminex (and those who taught there) were in open defiance of and rebellion against those who had been duly placed in authority over them. You may or may not agree that rebellion was justified and necessary but that is a different question. Surely, after such rebellion questions are in order.

Are you claiming that Trump was not the legitimate president or that he was not legally elected to that office and that those who worked in that administration were working for an illegitimate government? Do you claim that those who worked in or supported his administration were in rebellion against the duly authorized administration of our nation?

Would it have been legitimate for Trump's administration to have asked a "ton of questions" before hiring people who had worked in the Obama administration? What sort of questions?

[Pr. Don Kirchner]

Would it have been legitimate for Trump's administration to have asked a "ton of questions" before hiring people who had worked in the Obama administration? What sort of questions?

Keep in mind, Dan, that asking a ton of questions was in the context of encounter or employ in general, not only in the context of administration employment. Illegal? Perhaps not on a federal level, but it certainly could trigger a discrimination claim based upon a protected trait, like race or religion. And it might violate some state laws.

[peter_speckhard]

Right now, Pastor Fienen, I am ready to set aside past grievances, for he will be out of office soon.
But we have some current grievances.
-the filing of frivolous lawsuits,
-the refusal to fund the President-Elect’s transition team and denying the President-Elect access to security briefings and appropriate help from the State Department
-idiotic “orders” to government agencies to get ready for his February budget
-setting aside all care for and work on combatting the virus
-tweeting lies and nonsense
Let’s focus on though.

What work on combatting the virus were you hoping for? The kind the Dems have been demonstrating lately?

You use words like frivolous, nonsense, idiotic, and appropriate/inappropriate as though there is wide agreement about them, which would make them legitimate grievances. There is not wide agreement about the application of those words, which means you have a disagreement, not a grievance.

Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Park Avenue, and if Project Veritas had the video but WaPo's experts said it didn't happen, you would say it didn't happen. You need to expose yourself with a hint of an open mind to people who genuinely disagree with you. In these precincts, you do not. You already know what is what, and if you are proven wrong on one thing you just move on to talk about something else without changing your mind.

Maybe the 40+ GOP senators who have yet to congratulate Biden aren't all stupid partisan hacks. Maybe the President of Mexico isn't a fool for saying he will wait to see who wins. There is no real reason not to let this play out according to the established timeline. If Biden wins as expected, he will enter office with the advantage of having given his opponents their day in court and headed off potential complaints of illegitimacy.     

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/11/easy-breezy_biden_ignores_transition_drama__144639.html

I think this article should help everyone simmer down about the transition. Biden seems unconcerned. As does Trump. Trump is clearly playing it as though he knows something most people don't. If he is bluffing just for the sake of leaving open the possibility of a 2024 rematch, so be it. If not, so be it. He can't hold his cards forever; there is a deadline for laying the cards on the table. So wait for the deadline.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen:
Would it have been legitimate for Trump's administration to have asked a "ton of questions" before hiring people who had worked in the Obama administration? What sort of questions?
Me:
Yes. Whatever questions they wanted to ask. And I'll bet they did.
Look, folks, we can drill down and needle-ize and nit-pick this until Harry gets a pup, but it will all be irrelevant chatter.
Let's focus on reality. On today. On looking towards tomorrow. Is that so hard?
Here is the deal today. Biden is the President-Elect. He has won the election. Nothing is likely to change that.
So I ask again:
Why refuse to fund the transition team?
Why issue orders to government agencies to get ready for Trump's budget in February?
Why are Republican leaders mostly silent? (Do they support the president's spreading of lies or do they think that being silent keeps them from getting schmutz on their shoes?)
Why are frivolous lawsuits being filed, some by third-level lawyers as just machinery-clogging harassment?
Why try to reorganize the Pentagon at this stage?
Why does He tweet more and more lies?
Where are the words from the sensible Republicans or people around him who are not under his spell?
Can we acknowledge the non-confrontational way that Biden is progressing? He is moving ahead - as much as he can - and not even mentioning the warped utterings from the White House, save for a reference to some things being "embarrassing." No trashing of Trump. No whining about his transition being more difficult. Just trying to get to work. The first focus - on the virus. (When is the last time you heard Trump speak of combatting the virus?) Then talks with overseas allies.
We have in one place a man defeated for a second term, whining and mewling in the White House and issuing strange and meaningless orders and lies; and in the other place a President-Elect ignoring this childish behavior of his predecessor and trying to get to work.
You may not like what some of that "work" might be. OK. Debate, argue, legislate, compromise.
But what does anyone - the Republican Party, cabinet members, Vice President Pence, presidential aides, political appointees, not to mention the nation as a whole get from the mess the President is creating?
You tell me. Peter is 1/8th right. We have to wait. But it would be very wrong for the nation as a whole to ignore what is going down these at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Randy Bosch]

Even given the awaited certification of a new administration, those actually concerned about the health and functioning of our democracy and ease of voting would be the first to applaud a bi-partisan post-election check-up by elected folk to evaluate the way things worked (not how people voted, not who won or lost) in each jurisdiction and nation-wide to help improve accuracy and timeliness, as well as to disprove the claims about fraudulent voting.

Simply stating that there is no need to have a thorough and transparent post-election evaluation by proper authorities because your guy or my gal won an election is a bit like not having a health check-up or not tuning up your car's engine and checking everything out at reasonable intervals because my body and my car got me where I wanted to go all Summer long.

[Randy Bosch]

1. Al Gore didn't concede until more than 30 days after what used to be known as "Election Day".

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. 

Well, actually, he did concede almost immediately, then retracted his concession. But the circumstance was quite difficult. It was a matter of a single state, an extremely small margin, and the issue wasn't so much alleged fraud but accurate and consistent counting of ballots. Remember "hanging chads"?

Thanks for the fine-tuning, accuracy matters including with "hanging chads".

What is your evidence for saying that Trump "didn't get much" cooperation? This is a serious question. My recollection is that on the Trump side, things were chaotic; Chris Christie was his director of transition and Trump fired him a couple of days in. Far as I know, Obama made the appropriate office space and funding available. But it's pretty hard to cooperate with utter chaos.

Would you be willing to accept the same level of cooperation and chaos free transition that the outgoing Obama administration officials up and down the ladder gave to the incoming Trump administration in 2016-2017?

[Charles Austin]

I heartily approve the idea of checking out our election system in the years ahead. this should include:
-Considering abolishing the Electoral College
-Finding some nation-wide, inter-state compatible technology for counting votes.
-Counting mail-in votes before Election Day, releasing the counts after the polls close
-Uniform plans for "observers" and "Election judges"
-Massive voter education projects teaching about registration, the various ways of voting
-Intensive investigation on the ways designed to suppress votes or intimidate voters, for example, difficult-to-reach or insignificant numbers of polling places, unofficial "disinformation" campaigns,
-Voting on a Sunday, rather than a work-day, or mandating that employers give time off for voting.
The difficulty is that each state controls elections in that state.