Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[peter_speckhard]

Hardly a “massive flaw”.
It was human error involving apparently less than 3000 ballots, which would not have changed anything.
Again no evidence of massive orchestrated voter fraud.
So let’s not go hysterical over this error.

Again, the only evidence of any hysteria is coming from you. Relax. These things take time. There is a schedule in place, and it isn't likely to change. Even if nothing changes about the election results, there are plenty of reasons, especially given the sudden changes to the process because of the pandemic, to fully inspect the results and the methods to look for errors, fraid, or security issues.

If they do find substantial fraud and the results change, then you can expect widespread rioting and looting. That is just how your side rolls. Until then, no need to worry. They'll do recounts. They'll investigate reports of suspicious activity. They'll certify the results. The electors will vote. And those who are duly, properly elected will be sworn in.

[Dan Fienen]

Is there a Constitutionally mandated "Office of the President Elect?" I was not aware that office was an official part of our governmental structure.

[Julio]

Oh yes ... you conveniently forget how the Clinton administration removed the ‘W’s from White House computer key boards ... along with other odd behaviors.

I didn't know that had happened. It did on a few keyboards used by aides. Some of the "Ws" were placed on high ledges above doors. A prank. No "Ws" were removed from keyboards in the West Wing. The president was able to type George W. Bush.

Clinton Transition Left $15,000 Damage, GAO Says

A yearlong investigation into whether Clinton administration aides left the White House in fraternity-party disarray as they vacated the presidential premises has turned up about $15,000 in damage, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Above from the LA Times although the topic has been previously documented.

Perhaps you should be as eager to recite the sins of your progressive ilk as you are to recite the sins of those whom you loath and despise. 👹

I have. I have challenged some progressive friends about positions they have that I think are ill-founded. However, I have almost never found a progressive friend posting lies as facts on Facebook; well, except for my mother. I've pointed out when she has posted something that doesn't pass the fact-check tests. I've had to do that much more often with conservative friend's posts than with progressive posts.

Having listened... and am currently listening to Congressional hearings on bias social media censorship it should be evident that ‘fact checking’ can be bogus.  The fact you considered a lie is often different than what other consider true.

No individual or organization should be allowed to judge the truthfulness of what is allowed to be read and shared.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen:
Is there a Constitutionally mandated "Office of the President Elect?" I was not aware that office was an official part of our governmental structure.
Me:
No. But so what? There are laws in place dictating how the transition should take place. Why do people fuss and obsess about this term, which is been in use for a long time.

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Fienen:
Is there a Constitutionally mandated "Office of the President Elect?" I was not aware that office was an official part of our governmental structure.
Me:
No. But so what? There are laws in place dictating how the transition should take place. Why do people fuss and obsess about this term, which is been in use for a long time.

Nobody was until you took notice of who was not using it and demanded that they start.

[Charles Austin]

Peter, the issue is not who will finally take office, yes, that is clear. The issue is what this kind of ridiculous babble does to the way we look at our elections and the processes. And that goes far beyond being careful and cautious about errors in voting.
The intent of those who are screaming “fraud” today is not to find real fraud.
And no, I was not the one who raised the issue of president-elect. But it does concern me that people would deny that appellation are those who are still trying to undermine any confidence in our elections. Not that there aren’t occasional mistakes. But those complaining today are not speaking of mistakes; they are trying to convince us that elections are fraudulent and wind.

[Julio]

Pastor Fienen:
Is there a Constitutionally mandated "Office of the President Elect?" I was not aware that office was an official part of our governmental structure.
Me:
No. But so what? There are laws in place dictating how the transition should take place. Why do people fuss and obsess about this term, which is been in use for a long time.

Nobody was until you took notice of who was not using it and demanded that they start.

Those vehemently objecting to the review of election results either via recount or court are apparently distrustful of the American Legal Process and are severely disrespectful of those with whom they disagree.

It is especially disconcerting that the those who cry of unity and peace today are the very purveyors of hate, discord and disrespectful posting over the past 4 years.

After four years of constant haranguing of the current President, pleas for unity ring hollow and wreak of double standard.

[jebutler]

Pastor Fienen:
Is the urgency to get the vaccine process under Biden's control from the distrust of Trump's vaccine program (see New York's insistence that they will not trust certification of a vaccine under Trump's FDA)? Will we need to dump all the vaccine research as tainted by Trump and start over, so the sooner we begin again the better?

I comment:
Ye gods and little fishes! Must you always, to a maddening degree, go to your extremes? First, you misrepresent New York's concern; and I'm more concerned that Trump says New York won't get the vaccine from him because he's pissed off at Cuomo.

Here you go, changing history again.

On Sept. 24, Gov. Cuomo stated that he would have his own board of scientists review any vaccine approved by the FDA and that he would not recommend any New Yorker be vaccinated until that review was finished. (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/24/916565352/cuomo-says-n-y-health-officials-will-review-any-u-s-approved-covid-19-vaccine)

Seems to me that Trump just took him at his word. The Trumpster said that the vaccine would be sent when Cuomo's board approves it, but not before. Why should any vaccine be sent to a state so it can sit on the shelf while the governor's board checks it out?

It seems odd to me that Cuomo is now saying, "I’ll sue the White House if they don’t send the vaccines I refused to take!"

Maybe he should have thought his words through before he started mouthing off in September. Now they're coming back to bite him.

Personally, I'm with Trump on this one. Cuomo said he wanted his board to review it, so let them. After they review it, the drug can be distributed in his state, but not before. What else can he do? He can't force the state the take it. He can't demand that people get it. He's just saying "Hey, New York! This is what your governor has said. I'm taking him at his word. You don't like it, let him know and tell him to change his mind."

[Brian Stoffregen]

David Garner:
You don't get to present the "respect the election" line if you're still on Russian collusion.

Me:
No. We are not on Russian collusion. It has not been proven that there was cooperation between any aspect of the Trump campaign and the Russians. But it is proven that the Russians worked to have an influence on the 2016 election. It is proven that they had some effect. But the matter of "collusion" has not been proven.

It has not been proven that they had any effect whatsoever. They try to have an effect on every election. Even talking about Russia in regard to the 2016 election is swallowing a bogus narrative designed to do nothing but delegitimize the results.

Accurate. Yet wingnuttery persists from the supposed adults in the room.

Inaccurate. Where have Charles or I sought to delegitimize the results of the 2016 election? We have repeatedly stated that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Even when, in our opinion, he wasn't acting very presidential, he still holds the office.


There is much more going on now to try and delegitimize the 2020 election than in 2016.

[Brian Stoffregen]

A yearlong investigation into whether Clinton administration aides left the White House in fraternity-party disarray as they vacated the presidential premises has turned up about $15,000 in damage, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Above from the LA Times although the topic has been previously documented.

That is very small potatoes compared to the $1.75 million renovation that the Trumps did when they came to the White House.


https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a10366986/trump-white-house-renovation-details/

Having listened... and am currently listening to Congressional hearings on bias social media censorship it should be evident that ‘fact checking’ can be bogus.  The fact you considered a lie is often different than what other consider true.

No individual or organization should be allowed to judge the truthfulness of what is allowed to be read and shared.

Yes, "fact checking" can be bogus. One must use reliable sources. I like that the sites I use, explain in detail why they come to the conclusion of "true," "false," or "mixed". Sources are footnoted. Anyone can look them up.


In both testaments, the people of God are commanded to judge the truthfulness of the prophets. "Bearing false witness" is one of the Ten Commandments. Based on Luther's explanation, it is one that Christians often break.

[Randy Bosch]

David Garner:
You don't get to present the "respect the election" line if you're still on Russian collusion.

Me:
No. We are not on Russian collusion. It has not been proven that there was cooperation between any aspect of the Trump campaign and the Russians. But it is proven that the Russians worked to have an influence on the 2016 election. It is proven that they had some effect. But the matter of "collusion" has not been proven.

It has not been proven that they had any effect whatsoever. They try to have an effect on every election. Even talking about Russia in regard to the 2016 election is swallowing a bogus narrative designed to do nothing but delegitimize the results.

Accurate. Yet wingnuttery persists from the supposed adults in the room.

Inaccurate. Where have Charles or I sought to delegitimize the results of the 2016 election? We have repeatedly stated that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Even when, in our opinion, he wasn't acting very presidential, he still holds the office.


There is much more going on now to try and delegitimize the 2020 election than in 2016.

A friend notes that your "Memory is not much different than nostalgia - just a theatrically generous reading of expiration dates".

You neglected to recall the push starting immediately upon election to make sure that the last administration and President fail miserably, the spying on his transition team, the doxing of named transition and new administration people, the cabal of past-administration hold-overs fervently discussing ways to get rid of the President-elect and then President, the years-long Russian collusion hoax - not aimed at the Russians but at the new President.  The hearings leading up to impeachment using bought and paid for fake data.  And the beat goes on.

But we're supposed to be moving ahead now to unify the country.  That often starts by admitting past mistakes even though demanding that the outgoing administration not do the stuff that they're not doing.
A modest beginning would be to admit that the current President is still President until late January 2020, with all of the authority legally vested in that office and through it the Federal administration, instead of acting as if he needs to vacate the Oval Office immediately.

[Randy Bosch]

That is very small potatoes compared to the $1.75 million renovation that the Trumps did when they came to the White House.

Then-President Obama was reported to have spend $1.5 million for his renovation.
He didn't self-fund the lavish lifestyle that he and his family enjoyed while residents thereof.
Potatoes apparently become a bit more expensive over 8 years.
How about keeping track of what the new President spends on his renovation of the White House.
Better yet, don't do that, but opt for not picking any more nits.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pastor Fienen:
Is the urgency to get the vaccine process under Biden's control from the distrust of Trump's vaccine program (see New York's insistence that they will not trust certification of a vaccine under Trump's FDA)? Will we need to dump all the vaccine research as tainted by Trump and start over, so the sooner we begin again the better?

I comment:
Ye gods and little fishes! Must you always, to a maddening degree, go to your extremes? First, you misrepresent New York's concern; and I'm more concerned that Trump says New York won't get the vaccine from him because he's pissed off at Cuomo.

Here you go, changing history again.

On Sept. 24, Gov. Cuomo stated that he would have his own board of scientists review any vaccine approved by the FDA and that he would not recommend any New Yorker be vaccinated until that review was finished. (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/24/916565352/cuomo-says-n-y-health-officials-will-review-any-u-s-approved-covid-19-vaccine)

Seems to me that Trump just took him at his word. The Trumpster said that the vaccine would be sent when Cuomo's board approves it, but not before. Why should any vaccine be sent to a state so it can sit on the shelf while the governor's board checks it out?

It seems odd to me that Cuomo is now saying, "I’ll sue the White House if they don’t send the vaccines I refused to take!"

Maybe he should have thought his words through before he started mouthing off in September. Now they're coming back to bite him.

Personally, I'm with Trump on this one. Cuomo said he wanted his board to review it, so let them. After they review it, the drug can be distributed in his state, but not before. What else can he do? He can't force the state the take it. He can't demand that people get it. He's just saying "Hey, New York! This is what your governor has said. I'm taking him at his word. You don't like it, let him know and tell him to change his mind."

One can have a board review the data of the tests before receiving the vaccine. It's like checking facts on the internet. Part of my college training in psychology was to read the write up of experiments in psych journals to see if there were missed variables. One of the things I've stated before is that none of the polls fit the requirements for a scientifically random sample of the population. The fact that they have been skewed is not surprising.

[mj4]

Hardly a “massive flaw”.
It was human error involving apparently less than 3000 ballots, which would not have changed anything.
Again no evidence of massive orchestrated voter fraud.
So let’s not go hysterical over this error.

Yes, the infighting, calls for resignations, and alarmist rhetoric in Georgia are really all about posturing for the January runoffs. The failure to upload data from a memory card in Floyd county resulted in a marginal gain of only 778 votes for President Trump. We should count every vote, but this error won’t overturn the election results.

[Brian Stoffregen]

David Garner:
You don't get to present the "respect the election" line if you're still on Russian collusion.

Me:
No. We are not on Russian collusion. It has not been proven that there was cooperation between any aspect of the Trump campaign and the Russians. But it is proven that the Russians worked to have an influence on the 2016 election. It is proven that they had some effect. But the matter of "collusion" has not been proven.

It has not been proven that they had any effect whatsoever. They try to have an effect on every election. Even talking about Russia in regard to the 2016 election is swallowing a bogus narrative designed to do nothing but delegitimize the results.

Accurate. Yet wingnuttery persists from the supposed adults in the room.

Inaccurate. Where have Charles or I sought to delegitimize the results of the 2016 election? We have repeatedly stated that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Even when, in our opinion, he wasn't acting very presidential, he still holds the office.


There is much more going on now to try and delegitimize the 2020 election than in 2016.

A friend notes that your "Memory is not much different than nostalgia - just a theatrically generous reading of expiration dates".

You neglected to recall the push starting immediately upon election to make sure that the last administration and President fail miserably, the spying on his transition team, the doxing of named transition and new administration people, the cabal of past-administration hold-overs fervently discussing ways to get rid of the President-elect and then President, the years-long Russian collusion hoax - not aimed at the Russians but at the new President.  The hearings leading up to impeachment using bought and paid for fake data.  And the beat goes on.

But we're supposed to be moving ahead now to unify the country.  That often starts by admitting past mistakes even though demanding that the outgoing administration not do the stuff that they're not doing.
A modest beginning would be to admit that the current President is still President until late January 2020, with all of the authority legally vested in that office and through it the Federal administration, instead of acting as if he needs to vacate the Oval Office immediately.

Note the great difference: there were people trying to remove Trump from office. There weren't efforts to keep him from assuming the office to which he had been duly elected.


Part of the duties of the Office is to assure the smooth transition to the new regime. That's also true for pastors when leaving a Call. Should we try to interfere with the calling and installation and ministry of the new pastor, that would be considered misconduct.