Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches

[Charles Austin]

Peter, I read the link you provided to the spectator. Talk about something being “unsourced.” It was a puff piece on the Giuliani antics in Pennsylvania. There are holes in that story you could drive a truck through. And if any of it, repeat any of it, were true why did it not make its way into any of the nearly 40 court cases filed? And the “Spectator”? Really?
You take what you see to be anomalies in voting, and construe from there widespread fraud and conspiracy. That is just not sane thinking.
And isn’t it interesting when the United States Attorney General is caught red-handed telling the truth? 
Remember that Barr would readily warp the constitution in order to support Trump. He suggested it numerous times.  And today he claims that the election was valid and uncompromised. Does that say anything to you?

[Charles Austin]

With regard to the president’s most recent spoutings, it is time to make the comparison between him and Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, and for somebody to stand up and say “have you no shame, no sense of decency?”
While his words weren’t directed at a particular individual, do we see how they slander virtually every polling worker and local official, including Republicans, in the country? I ask again, what sort of massive cooperation and secrecy would have taken to accomplish what he claims someone attempted to accomplish?

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, I read the link you provided to the spectator. Talk about something being “unsourced.” It was a puff piece on the Giuliani antics in Pennsylvania. There are holes in that story you could drive a truck through. And if any of it, repeat any of it, were true why did it not make its way into any of the nearly 40 court cases filed? And the “Spectator”? Really?
You take what you see to be anomalies in voting, and construe from there widespread fraud and conspiracy. That is just not sane thinking.
And isn’t it interesting when the United States Attorney General is caught red-handed telling the truth? 
Remember that Barr would readily warp the constitution in order to support Trump. He suggested it numerous times.  And today he claims that the election was valid and uncompromised. Does that say anything to you?

Again, pure ad hominem. The Spectator? Really? That is all you, and generally all you have. What is your explanation? You don’t have one. If someone can say the Spectator’s numbers are wrong and show what the real numbers are, fine. That would be engaging the substance, which you never do. To believe that there was no fraud at all requires believing a lot of really bizarre anomalies and statistical outliers all happened. If you’re concerned about people’s faith in elections, why not a) welcome examination of those outliers and b) welcome any and all efforts at election reform that work toward greater security, like voter ID laws and signature matches?

[Charles Austin]

We are going around in circles here. I believe that allegations of fraud need to have proof. Without proof the allegations are simply allegations, perhaps even insane pipe dreams. You contend that the allegations are so obvious that they must be true
I ask again, why did no one conduct any investigations that came up with any proof?
I guess those trying to prove fraud are really stupid and don’t know how or where to look.

[Dan Fienen]

Some of the problem with Trumps refusal to fully and completely concede is that his refusal is interfering with his opponents ability to fully and completely gloat. How can they fully gloat until Trump concedes the election and fully accepts his complete defeat and humiliating loss? Yes, by most accounts there is not a chance that Trump will somehow pull out a win, and his opponents have not a moments doubts that is the case. But until he acknowledges that he has been crushed how can they savor their triumph. For the mental health of his opponents he needs to acknowledge his disgrace.

[Charles Austin]

P. S. And by the way, my reference to “the spectator“ is no more ad hominem than any of the hundreds of times people here refer with scorn to The New York Times.
And Pastor Fienen, personally, I’m not necessarily trying to “savor” anything, Although I am obviously very happy that Biden won. But isn’t it sad that our country has to go through this? I have said before that our joy in his win is tempered by that. You impart a nastiness to us, Pastor Fienen, that does not exist. And your refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the matter continues to be disturbing.
Personally, I feel no need to "humiliate" Trump. He doesn't know what that means, anyway. Should the courts find him guilty of tax fraud, illegal business dealings, and/or treasonous cooperation with foreign governments, and should he be hauled off to federal prison, he would not feel humiliated. He is incapable of that feeling because he lacks what it takes to feel it.

[peter_speckhard]

We are going around in circles here. I believe that allegations of fraud need to have proof. Without proof the allegations are simply allegations, perhaps even insane pipe dreams. You contend that the allegations are so obvious that they must be true
I ask again, why did no one conduct any investigations that came up with any proof?
I guess those trying to prove fraud are really stupid and don’t know how or where to look.

Do signed affidavits from people who claim to have witnessed fraud count as clear proof? Of course not. They are allegations. They have some evidence to support them. They can't have proof until that evidence is investigated and weighed. You don't begin with proof, you begin with an allegation, then gather evidence. At this point my only contention is that there is enough prima facie evidence of fraud to take the allegation seriously. Maybe a bunch of incredibly unlikely things happened, like Biden running well behind Clinton in every urban area besides Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta, but way ahead of her in just those four places. Or Trump winning all the proven bellwether counties nationwide but losing the election. Or a series of data dumps somehow netting 570,000 votes for Biden and 3,200 for Trump. Or postal workers under oath testifying that they were directed to back date ballot envelopes all perjuring themselves. All of that could have happened. But I'm sceptical and made more sceptical by the reactions to my scepticism. A serious reaction would be to come up with alternate, more plausible explanations than fraud, and at least treating whatever small number of incontrovertible instances of fraud, such as people voting in two states, as serious offenses. Instead, we get, "You're an idiot for even suspecting that, and even if there was a bit of it, who really cares?"

It could very well be that there is no proof strong enough to convince a court. And maybe O.J. really was innocent. But the reason nobody thinks O.J. was innocent is because he won in terms of the demand for absolute proof that he had to have done it, but he lost the p.r. battle in terms of explaining what the heck actually happened if he didn't do it. Biden may be sworn in, but as long as he and his supporters refuse to give a plausible explanation to the questions being raised,   

[Norman Teigen]

Yes. It was a fabrication.  There was nothing about the Clinton candidacy or the fact that Donald Trump won the 2016 election in the article.  No one questions that Donald Trump won the  2016 election.  It was a Randy Bosch fabrication to say that I had misread the article. 

[Charles Austin]

Peter, I have to believe that now you’re simply trolling, and I’m not at all hungry for the bait.
It’s over. The election is valid. There was no fraud. That is proven by any standard of proof that counts.
Meanwhile, the crazed rantings from the White House and his warped attorneys like Giuliani and Powell go on. Why?

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, I have to believe that now you’re simply trolling, and I’m not at all hungry for the bait.
It’s over. The election is valid. There was no fraud. That is proven by any standard of proof that counts.
Meanwhile, the crazed rantings from the White House and his warped attorneys like Giuliani and Powell go on. Why?

From the warped and crazed former mayor of NYC: “With all due respect to the Attorney General, there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation. We have gathered ample evidence of illegal voting in at least six states, which they have not examined. We have many witnesses swearing under oath they saw crimes being committed in connection with voter fraud. As far as we know, not a single one has been interviewed by the DOJ. The Justice Department also hasn’t audited any voting machines or used their subpoena powers to determine the truth," said Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. "Nonetheless, we will continue our pursuit of the truth through the judicial system and state legislatures, and continue toward the Constitution’s mandate and ensuring that every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is not. Again, with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.”

Why would he say that? Who knows? Maybe it is true. Maybe not. Maybe the people involved think they have something they don't have. But in any case, there can't have been any fraud because we know for a fact that there was no fraud and that alone is reason enough to believe there couldn't have been any fraud, and anyone who says otherwise is loony. 

[Dan Fienen]

P. S. And by the way, my reference to “the spectator“ is no more ad hominem than any of the hundreds of times people here refer with scorn to The New York Times.
And Pastor Fienen, personally, I’m not necessarily trying to “savor” anything, Although I am obviously very happy that Biden won. But isn’t it sad that our country has to go through this? I have said before that our joy in his win is tempered by that. You impart a nastiness to us, Pastor Fienen, that does not exist. And your refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the matter continues to be disturbing.
Personally, I feel no need to "humiliate" Trump. He doesn't know what that means, anyway. Should the courts find him guilty of tax fraud, illegal business dealings, and/or treasonous cooperation with foreign governments, and should he be hauled off to federal prison, he would not feel humiliated. He is incapable of that feeling because he lacks what it takes to feel it.

I'm glad that you feel no need to humiliate Trump although your restraint is tempered by your disdain for lack of emotional self awareness.  But not everything posted here is only about you personally. Can you speak for every Democrat or Trump opponent?

[Randy Bosch]

Yes. It was a fabrication.  There was nothing about the Clinton candidacy or the fact that Donald Trump won the 2016 election in the article.  No one questions that Donald Trump won the  2016 election.  It was a Randy Bosch fabrication to say that I had misread the article. 

I did not write that you had misread the article.  I stated that you either chose to not share your opinion on the second half of the article or hadn't read the whole thing - either way is fine, but there was more to be learned than your focused take on it. I did not quote from the article.

I definitely did not fabricate, but have a rather progressive opinion about the article's import given current events. 
If you think that is "fabrication", it is as if you and I read entirely different articles by Bittner.

You and I are entitled to different opinions, even so vastly different that many time zones separate them, but not to ad hominem attacks - whether or not I agreed with your opinion.  Should you disagree with my opinion, your bus won't come any faster and I welcome reading your opinions even if I disagree with them.  I will not engage in character assassination in lieu of civil discussion.

However, even though this thread is entitled "Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches", I want to take this opportunity to pray that you and yours have a blessed Advent season and a blessed Christmas, with a special hope that Minnesota COVID conditions guidance updates allow you to worship with fellow Christians in your church.

Blessings.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes (my emphasis added):
I'm glad that you feel no need to humiliate Trump although your restraint is tempered by your disdain for lack of emotional self awareness.  But not everything posted here is only about you personally. Can you speak for every Democrat or Trump opponent?

I comment:
No, I can't; and why should I have to? You are grasping for straws. If you find Democrats who are gloating or going all "savory" over the Biden victory, with an effort to humiliate Trump, you count, criticize, correct and condemn them.
I will say, as I have said before, that in my opinion the man currently in the White House is either 1) an errant and ignorant fool, whose lack of emotional and mental health puts our country in danger, or 2) a savvy, conniving, do-any-thing-to-get-what-you-want power grabber like a 1st Century B.C.E. Roman emperor, a Borgia pope, or any corrupt modern demagogue who brought their country facism, Nazism, Communism or other forms of ruin while enriching himself, his family and his friends. (I choose option 1, with a flavoring of option 2.) 

[Pr. Don Kirchner]

I look at the title of this thread, read the recent posts, and wonder.

From Moderator Johnson:

Your Turn / Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« on: November 24, 2020, 03:53:33 PM »
I think we've had more than enough. Thread locked.

Indeed.

[Charles Austin]

So long as Trump and the members of the cult keep prowling the land and contending that they won, the election is not over; even though in the understanding of sane people "the election" is over, but the aftermath of "the election" thunder-booms us daily. So long as Guiliani and Powell and their Controller keep at it, the aftermath is not over.