Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As morally problematic as I have found many aspects of Mr. Trump's behaviors, the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.  Facing something of a Sophie's Choice in November, I chose the guy who, although substantially flawed, loves America, has mostly good policy ideas, and has a track record of accomplishments and fulfilling campaign promises.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m embarrassed to know that there have been times I’ve defended you on the board. 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I’m embarrassed to know that there have been times I’ve defended you on the board. 

I’ve known Spencer a long time and mostly respected him as at least having put a lot of thought into his positions. But he’s jumped the shark here. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I’m embarrassed to know that there have been times I’ve defended you on the board. 

Message received.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve known Spencer a long time and mostly respected him as at least having put a lot of thought into his positions. But he’s jumped the shark here. 

I sort of reciprocate the sentiment.  I think the histrionics on display here are pretty weird.

Again, I would prefer to discuss the particulars of what sure looks like a lot of uncovered waste, fraud, corruption, etc., all at taxpayer expense.  I think it would be unwise to ignore this stuff simply out of reactionary spite against the Orange Man who is uncovering it.

Looks like that's not going to happen.  And perhaps that's just as well.  We're not supposed to be talking politics on this board anyway.  We've blown past that for the past few weeks/months.  For my part, I'll withdraw from the political discussion(s) and leave you folks to have the last word.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sort of reciprocate the sentiment.  I think the histrionics on display here are pretty weird.

Again, I would prefer to discuss the particulars of what sure looks like a lot of uncovered waste, fraud, corruption, etc., all at taxpayer expense.  I think it would be unwise to ignore this stuff simply out of reactionary spite against the Orange Man who is uncovering it.

Looks like that's not going to happen.  And perhaps that's just as well.  We're not supposed to be talking politics on this board anyway.  We've blown past that for the past few weeks/months.  For my part, I'll withdraw from the political discussion(s) and leave you folks to have the last word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Blame me, I used this thread to post something and it brought it up from awhile back.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Blame me, I used this thread to post something and it brought it up from awhile back.

You are not to blame for anything. Don't volunteer for such a thing.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

When you were an active member, did anyone in authority tell you to only study the Church from an approved list?  Am interested in members’ different experiences.

Not a list, but only from Church sources, yes.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Again, you're ignoring the statute for your own purposes. The business records statute is a criminal statute. Did he violate the statute, Spencer? It's a simple "yes" or "no".

Let the record show that I posted this question more than two hours ago, and more than an hour ago gave him a reminder.

Since that time, he has posted no less than 14 times in this thread. His latest, one of his signature "bowing out" posts.

He either cannot, or will not, answer a simple question about the criminal behavior of his favored politician. This despite his recent statement:

Spencer frequently chides critics on this board for allegedly not acting in good faith in their arguments on this board. But, when called to answer plain questions, the answer to which might undermine any of his previous statements, cannot or will not respond.

In this very thread, Spencer used the dirty tactic of putting words in my mouth regarding the issue of abortion:

 

Spencer's credibility as to his commitment to fair discussion and good faith arguments should not be taken seriously, in my opinion.

Edited February 13, 2025 by ttribe

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Looks like that's not going to happen.  And perhaps that's just as well.  We're not supposed to be talking politics on this board anyway.  We've blown past that for the past few weeks/months.  For my part, I'll withdraw from the political discussion(s) and leave you folks to have the last word.

Really?  Why?  What about @ttribechallenge to you? It does not seem to me you are debating in good faith. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Did you vote for Mr. Biden?  Or for Ms. Harris?  If so, you likely used the same moral calculus that I did, which involved coping with a field of deeply flawed candidates, and doing your best to choose.  And I bet you did that without endorsing the various problematic behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.

Neither Biden nor Harris tried to steal an election, incited a riot or betrayed their oath to the constitution. That is overriding to me. If you want to compare the contents of their characters as compared  to Trump I am happy to do so. I think they would come out much better in that arena as well.

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not a list, but only from Church sources, yes.

Same here. 

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sort of reciprocate the sentiment.  I think the histrionics on display here are pretty weird.

Again, I would prefer to discuss the particulars of what sure looks like a lot of uncovered waste, fraud, corruption, etc., all at taxpayer expense.  I think it would be unwise to ignore this stuff simply out of reactionary spite against the Orange Man who is uncovering it.

Looks like that's not going to happen.  And perhaps that's just as well.  We're not supposed to be talking politics on this board anyway.  We've blown past that for the past few weeks/months.  For my part, I'll withdraw from the political discussion(s) and leave you folks to have the last word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Huh, apparently expressing disapproval of Trump’s character and being baffled by those who ignore it qualify as histrionics. 

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody.  Who hired the thousands of Deep State bureaucrats infesting Washington D.C.?

The American People elected Donald Trump, who has appointed Elon Musk to oversee DOGE.  He's the President.  He has both inherent and procedural and constitutional and legislatively-authorized authority to do so.

The president can certainly hire staff, advisors, etc. DOGE IS NOT and official agency of the US government. It is an advisory group and thus subject to other rules and regulations.  Musk has no power other than to advise. He has already stepped beyond that. So if DOGE is to have more power and Musk is to run it do it by a legislative act of congress. Trump can then appoint Musk and the senate can vote to confirm him, or not.

By the way your use of the term deep state further reveals your bias. You clearly are not as objective as you pretend to be. 

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.

How many billions flowed into the coffers of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris from extremely rich people?

I doubt any one contributed $250 million. But this begs the question of dark money and that is another topic. Personally I think we need to do away with Citizens United.

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

They got fired.  By the President.

Yes the president can fire the IGs after giving congress 30 days notice and a reason.

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

And how well have they been doing with that "root{ing} out corruption and waste" thing?  Mr. Musk has accomplished more in weeks to uncover corruption in government that these IGs have done in decades.

I think you are woefully ignorant of the internal controls and audit mechanisms in place in our government. I do not think you have a clue as to what IGs accomplish as well as the GAO. You are spouting hyperbole and political talking points. And you have no idea what Musk has uncovered in a few weeks because they are not transparent or providing details. 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Well, the interests of entrenched and profoundly corrupt Deep State and NGO folks sure seemed to be in harmony with IGs not really doing their jobs well.

As for the "illegal" thing, we'll see, I suppose.  There is, I think, a pretty good argument for the proposition that the law which Mr. Trump supposedly violated is unconstitutional.  See, e.g., here:

Washington D.C. is profoundly corrupt.  I have pretty much no sympathy for the IGs who got fired, as they were either incompetent in doing their jobs - as you put it - "to root out corruption and waste," or else some of them may even be complicit in the very corruption they were supposed to be rooting out.  

Either way, firing them is the lawful prerogative of the President.  As Mr. Obama aptly noted: "Elections have consequences."

Rather than focus on the personalities of the people uncovering and explaining governmental waste, corruptions, graft, theft, incompetence, etc., I think we should focus more on governmental waste, corruptions, graft, theft, incompetence, etc.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

The rest is not worth a response.  

[ttribe]

Just now, Teancum said:

The president can certainly hire staff, advisors, etc. DOGE IS NOT and official agency of the US government. It is an advisory group and thus subject to other rules and regulations.  Musk has no power other than to advise. He has already stepped beyond that. So if DOGE is to have more power and Musk is to run it do it by a legislative act of congress. Trump can then appoint Musk and the senate can vote to confirm him, or not.

By the way your use of the term deep state further reveals your bias. You clearly are not as objective as you pretend to be. 

 

I doubt any one contributed $250 million. But this begs the question of dark money and that is another topic. Personally I think we need to do away with Citizens United.

 

Yes the president can fire the IGs after giving congress 30 days notice and a reason.

 

I think you are woefully ignorant of the internal controls and audit mechanisms in place in our government. I do not think you have a clue as to what IGs accomplish as well as the GAO. You are spouting hyperbole and political talking points. And you have no idea what Musk has uncovered in a few weeks because they are not transparent or providing details. 

The rest is not worth a response.  

Yeah, if you're committed to rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse in the government, your first steps never include firing your chief internal fraud fighters (the Inspectors General). You do that when you don't want anyone looking at your own fraud, waste, and abuse.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let the record show that I posted this question more than two hours ago, and more than an hour ago gave him a reminder.

Since that time, he has posted no less than 14 times in this thread. His latest, one of his signature "bowing out" posts.

I have extensively addressed the merits, or lack thereof, of the criminal convictions of Mr. Trump.  See, e.g., here.

Read the Somin article I linked to, and the two Calabresi arguments.  Focus on the "predicate crime" issue.  You may want to do a bit of research as to what that means, and its import in the criminal proceedings.

Those proceedings, of course, are now under appeal, and my opinion about the particulars of the criminal proceedings aren't worth much (I have never practiced in NY, and my overall crim law experience is pretty limited).  Messrs. Somin and Calabresi, however, have some important things to say.  I had assumed you have been reading my poss.  My bad.  Please do so now.

Here's another: Somebody Needs to Tell the Manhattan DA’s Office the Trump Case Is Over

Quote

In one sense, Trump got very lucky. He won the election, and now, entirely unrelated to any substantive defense, he’s scot-free. But Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg caught a break too. Given the case’s inevitable demise, he’ll likely dodge the appellate process and the real possibility that an appeals court would’ve thrown out his bizarre legal concoction on the merits.

The problems with the hush-money case were numerous. It had been rejected by the Feds at the Southern District of New York (Bragg’s old office, and mine) and even the Federal Election Commission as a regulatory matter. Bragg’s predecessor as Manhattan DA could’ve charged the case but didn’t and later referred to star witness Michael Cohen as “more than a problematic witness.” The legal theory here was, shall we say, inventive. The DA took one expired state-level misdemeanor, stacked another expired state misdemeanor on top of it, then piled a federal campaign-finance violation on top of that, and presto: an electroshocked state-level felony. No other state prosecutor — anywhere, ever — has charged a federal campaign-finance crime in state court, either as a count unto itself or as a predicate underlying offense. There’s good reason for that. Professor Rick Hasen, a liberal expert on election law, said (in a different context, unrelated to the Trump case) that “someone trying to use state legal process to find a criminal violation … for use of [federal] campaign finance money” could be not merely frivolous but “sanctionable,” meaning so outrageous that a court could fine a lawyer who even raised the argument (the very same upon which Bragg’s case depends).
...
In the end, the two people who benefited most from this case were the opposing principals. Regardless of the unsatisfying outcome for prosecutors, Bragg now has ensured that he has 100 percent name recognition and will be reelected for as long as he wants, possibly even to higher office, in heavily blue Manhattan and perhaps beyond. It’s an unavoidable conundrum built into any system of partisan, elected local prosecutors. In any jurisdiction dominated by one political party — Manhattan always votes over 80 percent Democratic — any office seeker has every rational incentive to go after an unpopular politician from the other side, no matter the legal contortions involved or the ultimate outcome.
...
{I}t’s impossible for Bragg, or anybody seeking election or reelection as a DA, to completely divorce the political implications from a high-profile charging decision.

The problem is not only that Bragg charged his case — which was plainly the least serious of the four indictments, even if we assume that it was legally valid — but that it was the first to be indicted and the only one tried. He poisoned the well for everything that followed. If you have four arguments and you lead with the worst one, you’re sabotaging your own cause.
...
It’s over now; Bragg’s case will never reach a conclusion, and Trump is headed back to the White House. He’s not getting sentenced now or in 2029. The DA has done enough damage. It’s time to let it go.

"It's time to let it go."

Sage words.

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He either cannot, or will not, answer a simple question about the criminal behavior of his favored politician.

Oh, brother.  I provided links to articles written by some fairly well-informed and well-regarded law professors, and I even provided extensive verbatim quotes addressing the apparent deficiencies in the legal proceedings against Mr. Trump.  And the case is on appeal.  

And you, apparently, didn't bother to read any of it, and instead are now crowing about some imagined "Gotcha."

Well, okay.

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This despite his recent statement:

Spencer frequently chides critics on this board for allegedly not acting in good faith in their arguments on this board. But, when called to answer plain questions, the answer to which might undermine any of his previous statements, cannot or will not respond.

I provided extensive citation to commentary about the case, which you apparently didn't bother to read.

"Good faith" is not implicated here.  Just sloppiness and inattentiveness on your part, and foolishness on my part for assuming you read substantive posts relevant to the discussion.  Lesson learned.

And as promised, I'll leave you with the last word:

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Spencer's credibility as to his commitment to fair discussion and good faith arguments should not be taken seriously.

 

Edited February 13, 2025 by smac97

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Pink said:

If you're a liberal now, you'll die unhappy. Liberals are miserable 

Go away

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

DOGE IS NOT and official agency of the US government.

Yes, it is.

Apart from that, I'll leave you with final words as to political issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Pink said:

I agree, I am miserable every once in a while. Especially when I can't stop thinking about the Mormon priesthood holder molesting me. I can still smell the room I was in when he pulled my pants down. I can still hear my belt being unbuckled. 

And we have a troll here. I would report you but I would rather this thread not get shut down.

[ttribe]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have extensively addressed the merits, or lack thereof, of the criminal convictions of Mr. Trump.  See, e.g., here.

Read the Somin article I linked to, and the two Calabresi arguments.  Focus on the "predicate crime" issue.  You may want to do a bit of research as to what that means, and its import in the criminal proceedings.

Those proceedings, of course, are now under appeal, and my opinion about the particulars of the criminality aren't worth much.  Messrs. Somin and Calabresi, however, have some important things to say.

Here's another: Somebody Needs to Tell the Manhattan DA’s Office the Trump Case Is Over

"It's time to let it go."

Sage words.

Oh, brother.  I provided links to articles written by some fairly well-informed and well-regarded law professors, and I even provided extensive verbatim quotes addressing the apparent deficiencies in the legal proceedings against Mr. Trump.  And the case is on appeal.  

And you, apparently, didn't bother to read any of it, and instead are now crowing about some imagined "Gotcha."

Well, okay.

I provided extensive citation to commentary about the case, which you apparently didn't bother to read.

"Good faith" is not implicated here.  Just sloppiness and inattentiveness on your part, and foolishness on my part for assuming you read substantive posts relevant to the discussion.  Lesson learned.

And as promised, I'll leave you with the last word:

 

The predication issue is not what you are representing. The prosecutors charged with him with altering business records to cover another crime (which is a felony). It doesn't matter whether that other crime was ever charged, nor whether the other crime was a felony, nor does he have to be convicted of the other crimes being covered. The initial indictment did not identify the other crime(s), but subsequent filings did. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York especially this portion -

Quote

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.^[93][94][95] The charges neither include, nor even identify, the additional crimes, constituting a relatively unusual strategy for the DA:^[96][93]

A New York Times analysis of about 30 false business records cases brought by Mr. Bragg and his predecessor — based on court records, interviews and information the office provided — shows that in this respect, the case against Mr. Trump stands apart. In all but two of the indictments reviewed by The Times, the defendant was charged with an additional crime on top of the false records charge.

In later filings, Bragg listed (but still did not charge) three general types of crime that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.^[97] Trump could have moved to allow the jury to convict on the misdemeanor charges as a lesser included offense, but he did not.^[98][99]

One of the violations of NY State laws he was covering was the crime of conspiracy to promote the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. There is no need for any Federal crime to have been covered by the act of falsifying the business records.

So, once again, I ask you - Did he falsify the records?

Edited February 13, 2025 by ttribe

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

He was convicted of 34 felonies by the efforts of an activist prosecutor in a deep blue state, just prior to a national election, and with all sorts of shenanigans by the also-pretty-activist judge.  And the substance of the crimes is . . . paperwork about paying Stormy Daniels.

Uh did you not accuse @ttribeof an ad hominem then turned around and well, cough, cough, used an ad hominem.  You may want to look at the demographics of NYS before you call it a deep blue state. 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not a list, but only from Church sources, yes.

Interesting.  I had some teachers ask about that when I was for a short time in the Primary Presidency and doing teacher training because they interpreted the advice in the intro as saying they could only use church distribution books while what it actually said was teachers didn’t need more than church provided materials….which advice given some of the stuff sold at Deseretbook for Primary aids always made me happy to see.  For many teachers giving their time and effort was more than enough of a sacrifice, spending money on books or aids shouldn’t be seen as a necessity for being a good teacher.

And as a Ward librarian we were instructed to only duplicate stuff from church distribution or created by teachers themselves and some thought that was an approved sources issue, but if one read the guidelines, it was a copyright issue.

So I saw some who interpreted instruction in that way, but never actual instruction….and once I drew their attention to the actual instructions they were happy to see they weren’t as restricted as they thought.  
 

I always laughed because Utahns seemed to be the ones most violating the copyright rules.  Too many pretty and fun things to buy in stores or too easy to bring videos and coloring pages from home.   

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.

How so?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't think he incited a riot.

Meanwhile, I don't recall any fretting about the billions of dollars in property damage, hundreds of injuries, and dozens of deaths in the BLM/Antifa riots.  

I have previously condemned all of this stuff, the Jan 6 stuff, the BLM/Antifa stuff, all of it.

Well you are wrong. And I condemned he BLM/Antifa riots as well so your whataboutism  does not work here.  It is clear where you stand and we won't agree on this  so no sense in wasting time any further.

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.

Apart from that, I'll leave you with final words as to political issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

No it is not. You are wrong.

Edited February 13, 2025 by Teancum

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.

Apart from that, I'll leave you with final words as to political issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

By the way it was you who started made this thread political. And now you want to run away?