https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mments-wrapper

It made national news. Lots of enthusiasm for voting. 2 people I know waited in line for an hour (each at different locations). I dropped of my absentee ballot last week (and it was accepted).

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

There are LOTS of BIden signs in the suburbs where there were no clinton signs.

Dunno

Granted there are lots of rednecks here. Also lots of old people foxnewsers.

This is cincy. I expect Cleveland to go more biden. Not sure on COlumbus

Remember when John Roberts claimed in his Supreme Court decision that this stuff wouldn't happen? Was he lying or just remarkably stupid?

This has been one of his pet issues for years. He really, really, really, really believes that states should do whatever they want regarding voting.

I have no idea why he cares so much. But it's probably the issue that animates him the most.

Right-wing judges love states having the right so suppress. But as we saw in Bush v Gore, they are only for it when it benefits a certain party.

Joe is running for the senate now? If so, this is shocking news. I haven't heard this confirmed by a reliable source yet.

User Clip: Biden says he is running for US Senate | C-SPAN.org

and this is the problem.

Trump has desensitized us to all the horrible shit he says and does that when Biden make a gaffe people on the right are going to magnify it to the Nth degree when in reality Trump has done more horrible shit in the last week then Biden would likely do his whole presidency.

I mean, Trump literally said getting Covid was a blessing from god, but, the Senate...

Yep. Clearly so much worse than calling something that has killed 200,000+ Americans a hoax.

Yeah Biden isn't the ideal candidate, but holy shit focusing on his gaffes and claiming he's declining cognitively ignores the shit Trump does and the fact that the man has, on camera, struggled to lift a glass of water, walk down steps, regularly slurred his speech, said Yo-semite, claimed he had never heard of a CAT5 hurricane 4 months after visiting the damage of a CAT5 hurricane, doctored weather map with a sharpie, and his vocabulary has diminished noticeably over the past 10-15 years.

Biden is a piss poor candidate, but I just laugh when anyone tries to point stuff out that supposedly makes him so much worse than trump. It's funny shit.

"What? The democrat misspoke once? That's it. I am voting for the White Supremacist!"

Such a spot on tweet:

When politicians use faith as an excuse to pass and uphold laws that seize control of people’s bodies but not guarantee them healthcare, feed the poor, shelter the homeless, or welcome the stranger, you have to wonder if it’s really about faith at all.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 12, 2020

From an NBC story on wait times:

Biden does have some good people working his social media

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1315768958742491136

SMH. No, not spot on at all. Simply illustrates AOC doesn't know or understand the faith she's criticizing. And stereotyping, miscasting, and red-herring shaming people of "faith" without even knowing what that specific faith teaches ... it's really a form of bigotry.

So how is she wrong? Are all those things not principals referenced in the Bible?

Well, she's wrong, first of all, in that she is judging the authenticity of people's faith without first understanding that faith. She's implying that because these people's faith is inconsistent with her values and worldview that their faith is somehow inconsistent or invalid. Her criticism itself is wrong.

That's the point I'm making.

But given the rest of your question, I suspect that's not really what you're asking, Lathum.

AOC is misguided on several points. The first is the most obvious - "seizing control of people's bodies." I assume she's talking about abortion? Isn't that the clear intent of that line? But, c'mon, now. That's a propaganda line purposefully designed to disparage the pro-life position by recasting it in a negative light, the same kind of uncivil namecalling as pro-lifers who call pro-choice people "bloodthirsty baby killers." Neither line has any justification in civil discussion of the issue. The vast majority of prochoice people aren't interested in killing, but in protecting women, and the vast majority of pro-life people aren't interested in control, but in protecting preborn lives.

But that's still not what I think Lathum is asking. I believe you're questioning how opposing abortion but resisting, say, government-guaranteed health care (two points I think AOC was alluding to in her tweet) is consistent biblically.

Within conservative Christianity, there is a foundational belief about government (based on Romans 13 and specifically 1 Peter 2:14) that God established governments among humanity for two specific reasons: to punish evildoing (i.e. police power and military, courts and justice) and to commend well-doing (i.e. statesmanship and honors, some would say tax breaks). And if you also hold that abortion is the unjust taking of human life, it would be the government's job to illegalize the practice.

But the arena of caring for the poor, the homeless, those with inadequate health insurance - under this belief - is the responsibility first of the family (and their are several verses that support that idea), then the church (and several more that support that), and finally of the individual as a neighbor and community member (lots to support that idea).

In other words, the Bible clearly teaches us to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc. etc. You're absolutely right about that, Lathum. But the Bible also teaches that's my job, my family's job, my church's job.

When AOC presumes that Christians must also believe that to be the government's job in order to be consistent with their faith, however, she demonstrates that she doesn't understand a very common, Bible-based belief among many conservative Christians.

Can I just say regardless of what side you are on, that was a very well thought out and thorough response. Well done.

What I'd be curious about and where I guess I fall into "liberal" Christianity (ELCA is pretty liberal - I only use the quotes to distinguish from you using conservative vs me using liberal) and why I advocate for these things within government is: How does "neighbor/community member" does not equate to government?

Also, realistically, I would argue it's naive to say that only family members and the church can care for needs when there are so many who are poor or hungry in this world or even just in the United States, a wealthy country by any measure.

SI

+1

.@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) October 13, 2020

The glue that holds the GOP together is voter supression.

I would go a bit further and say that the "neighbors/community" piece is not inconsistent with a desire for the government to step in where there is an insufficiency in caring for those needs. Presumably, if families/churches/neighbors/communities were enough, the need would not exist (or be extremely limited).

As a lawyer, what she just said is, "Give me enough time and I can make a well-reasoned argument for either side."

That's what I think is so pointless about all of this. These are lawyers. Making some grandiose point about applying the law or Constitution is meaningless when there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of every litigated issue. One person's "plain meaning" is another's over-reach. These confirmation hearings are simply theater. Whoever is fortunate enough to be President when an opening occurs gets to choose the person to fill the vacancy, absent some obviously disqualifying matter. End of story.

This whole thing is one side being mad conservatives chose a conservative judge and the other side reveling in it.

There can literally be no free market without a government providing the rules for fre exchanges of goods and services. In making those rules, the government is partially determing who will get resources and who will not. The government is so intimately involved in creating an economic system that it's impossible to then divorce the government from the consequences of that system. Charity has never been enough to overcome imperfections in the economic system. You either accpet that the government will also play a role in how resources are distributed to those with the least, or you accept that people will suffer through no fault of their own.

I agree with Pope John Paul, justice comes before charity.

I accept that on a lot of issues, but it would be much more comforting to hear her defend the electoral process. It would be the fringiest of fringe ideas to argue the President can postpone the election. Putting it in context with what Trump has said and with the GOP argument that she should be seated ASAP to rule on election issues and it's frightening.

yes. I appreciate it and very thought provoking.

This shit goes over my head.

Trump is POTUS. The POTUS appoints judges to the Supreme Court. There's an opening and Trump is filling it.

I understand that the Senate prevented Obama from filling a spot, but should we stop this one just because of that?

Just because Lincoln didn't fill a spot once means Trump shouldn't?

I think a lot of it comes from it being Trump.

So why does contemporary conservative Christianity in America do such a piss poor job at all of these things? I totally agree that the teaching is there, but I would argue that a lot of churches out there are just fear-mongering to try to keep people in the faith rather than encouraging them to do good works. There is a reason people are driven away from the church and it's not because they are generally doing a great job within their communities, though some are.

So the many conservatives that came out during the last election (Clinton v. Trump) and said that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled during "election season" that all of the sudden flip-flopped and said "yeah, this one should be filled" mostly just because now they are the ones doing the filling has no impact on you? Or are you just not aware of that subtext?

Yes.

No, I see the hypocrisy. When does it end? I think it was mentioned around here some where. At some point, this BS has to end and the politicians need to work together.

100% spot on. I liked and shared. It reminds me when my Church's Presiding Bishop (I'm ECLA, so Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton) posts about the government taking care of the poor or homeless or immigrants (which are issues explicitly in Scripture) and people come out of the woodwork to say "Stop bringing politics into it" or "What about abortion" (not realizing the ELCA has had a Social Statement on Abortion for a couple decades now).

Which is why I tend to respect Catholics (esp the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and not just liberal Catholics like AOC) a lot. Because they are very much against abortion, but also speak up for programs for the homeless, more welcoming immigration policies, and better access to healthcare.

I'd agree to term limits and an appointment every two years right now and I'd do that accepting great deference to the President regarding who they appoint.

But in the current system, the norms matter and breaking those norms should have consequences. If it's just about raw power, there should be no problems with expanding the court.

For a longer response, it's not just that the Senate prevented Obama from filling a spot (by not even giving a hearing!), it's that they did it based on a standard that they no longer want to follow. If Trump won in November and then filled the seat, I'd agree that there isn't reason to oppose the nomination.

It's all a moot point, though. The GOP has the votes and they will confirm Barrett. It doesn't matter what Democrats argue.

I've long argued that justices should only be opposed for being unqualified in a pretty strict sense. So I would normally argue that Barrett should be let in because she definitelly fits the definition of a qualified judge. But the Garland fiasco has completely changed my mind on that.

She does understand it; she just doesn't think its Christian (I agree). I don't know why conservative Christians think liberal Christians doesn't understand the core of their beliefs. We just don't think it's theologically justified. The same way that conservative Christians think our position on gay marriage is theologically justified - but of course they believe we don't read or understand the Bible without even once considering we interpret Scripture very, very differently than they do.

We liberal Christians understand conservative Christians view on this quite well - conservative Christians like to overly explain it when we talk about how the government need to be a part of carrying out God's aims.


The Old Testament, for one, is very clear that these requirements apply to the State. It was really in reading the Old Testament, where I was opened to the idea that it was good and proper and pleasing to God that out Governments are responsible to do these things.

I think it mostly comes down to conservatives wanting conservatives judges and liberals wanting liberal judges.

If the Democrats controlled the senate and presidency they would be trying to rush Ginsburg 2.0 through the senate right now.

I'm fine with POTUS nominating up until the election, but that's not the rule that the GOP instituted, so, yeah, I see this as a major violation of norms. I also don't think there's anything Dems can do about Barrett, so the answer is to use their power to expand the court as soon as they are able.

If the GOP wants to stop that by agreeing to a term limits system, I'd take that.

The approach seems to be "This is our domain."

Well, what if others don't cede that domain? Or don't recognize their (some might argue self-granted) sole authority to it?

I think the split between how rev approaches these questions and how you (and I) approach them is one of the hidden differences that account for whether a person is a Christian who votes Democrat or one who votes Republican. I see valid and defensible points in both directions, so it doesn't bother me which side of the equation folks end up on, because I think either way can be an out-working of legitimate faith. Practicing their faith in good faith, if that makes sense.

I've been irritated recently by guys like John Macarthur coming out and flat saying things like Democrats should be excommunicated. I'm usually of fan of Macarthur's Reformed positions, but I think he's dead wrong here and dangerously so. At the very least, he's adding to the gospel by suggesting that Christians must hold certain political stances or weigh political issues in a certain way. (He's more than welcome to feel that way personally, but preaching it from the pulpit is wrong-headed at the very least.)

I agree, but I have run into a LOT of John Macarthur types from the conservative Christian sphere. This especially has been the case after the ECLA came out in favor of LGBTQ+ Pastors in committed relationships. My Synod has a gay Bishop. You should hear how conservative Christians talk about how we don't understand or follow the Bible. You should see the Facebook and Twitter comments to the Presiding Bishop's posts. It's constant.

So I have little issues with a liberal Christian, like AOC, turning it around and pointing out that to liberal Christians these conservative Christians seem to not be following the Gospel at all.

Of course, as Catholic, AOC has a different view of these things than conservative Protestants in that the Catholic faith and state action have been linked far more in the past (that's not to say there haven't been Protestant and state linkages - Cromwell's England, Calvin's Geneva, etc). Popes consistently speak to what states should be doing - conservative as well as liberal (Pope Benedict XVI, FWIW, was not a fan of laissez-faire capitalism as well).

This battle between collective and individual action is at the heart of the revulsion for the GOP seen in polling of under 30 people. A lot of young people look at economic problems and climate change and wonder how individual action will do anything other than worsen the problems. I'm not an evangelical, but from what I've read these attitudes are starting to show up in evangelical congregations with larger young populations.

She'll get the founding fathers to say whatever she needs them to say to push the conservative cause, just as her mentor did.

SI

I will mostly say "yeah, what they said". I could get nit-picky about a couple other points of rev's statement (like taxes being "evil" and a tax cut being "upholding good." Jesus said "render into Casear what is Caesar's."). Instead, I will thank Rev for what was a well thought out response. I came from a strongly conservative Christian background, and I have studied most of those arguments. I personally found them lacking, and ignoring a large portion of Gospels message.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

For what it's worth, I don't think Christianity was designed to function in a democracy. I'd go so far as to argue that democracy is anti-thetical to Christianity as it's presented in the New Testament. How doctrines play out in a sphere where we get a vote and an interpretation of social/spiritual responsibility that corresponds to a vote in how the "kingdom" is run just isn't very well explicated.

Which isn't to say that you can't build arguments for how Christians should function in a democracy, but they're going to be based on reason and tradition and inference rather than
commands. And that's where we're inevitably going to (and historically have) run into problems.

The fact is that the Kingdom of Heaven isn't a democracy...and I think American Christianity has sort of assumed that it will function like one, only an idealized version where everyone makes the right moral decisions all the time so there isn't any disagreement.

There's a long history of democracy in certain portions of the Christian church. The Dominicans have been largely democratic since their inception.

100% agree, this is extremely well-put. My discussions of how a Christian should interact with politics always start with it shouldn't be a major priority, relatively speaking, and the responsibility to submit to whatever government is in place (Romans, Peter, etc).

Large sections of American Christianity definitely have this very wrong IMO.

This is me as well. I think MacArthur is probably the best preacher alive today, but this is really over the line.

Yes, because it's important that such tactics not become normal and accepted and rewarded. Since Garland happened, my position has been the Democrats should refuse to consider any other candidate - or given how long it's been now, any candidate that isn't similar to Garland. Right that wrong first, and then we can move on.

I don't have a problem with the Barrett nomination in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum. As important as SCOTUS justices are, they aren't as important as the integrity of governmental institutions as a whole - and most people here know that there aren't many people more conservative than me on Constitutional matters. It's a massive important issue, but this is even more fundamental than that.

It ends when the GOP agrees that there are rules that need to be abided by, not just bent to their will when they're in power and strictly followed when they're not. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. This is the literal definition of there being a complete and utter lack of checks and balances, because one side that basically owns all 3 branches of government is trying to orchestrate an undermining of all democratic (small d) processes that the Constitution put in place to prevent this kind of stuff from going on in the first place.