Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 24, 2020

A jarring new report from The Atlantic claims that the Trump campaign is discussing potential strategies to circumvent the results of the 2020 election, should Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump, by first alleging the existence of rampant fraud and then appointing electors in battleground states where Republicans maintain a legislative majority, whom Trump would ask to bypass the state's popular vote and instead to choose electors loyal to the GOP and the sitting president.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

www.theatlantic.com

The Atlantic piece mentioned in the Forbes article.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-23 07:31 PM | Reply

I told you so.

Get used to hearing that.

Truth Hurts

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wow, between chicanery by republicans suppressing votes that i was unaware of and the likely struggles to come after election day-I am more scared for the future than i was a half hour ago.

This article should be mandatory reading for all americans and addresses my concern that the major democratic failing in the past 4 years was not protecting the vote.

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 09:30 PM | Reply

We're coming for your gay marriage and infanticide.

Your "preferred pronouns" mean nutzing!

#4 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-23 09:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Mao, get a life. Are you really as stupid and corrupt as you sound posting here? If so, you need help. Serious professional help, with mental illness. I hope for your sake that this -------- is an act.

If it's not you're one ------ up dude.

#5 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-09-23 09:54 PM | Reply

"Are you really as stupid and corrupt as you sound posting here?"

He's living his best life.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-23 09:56 PM | Reply

The huge fly in Trump's ointment is that by claiming the presidential ballots are corrupt, he's throwing every single other race into doubt at the same time. Has anyone thought of what that means as a matter of effect? There can be no certified results for any contest or issue can there? How do you think every other candidate on all these ballots is going to feel about their own results being nullified by Trump's bogus claims of impropriety?

While Trump is planning on going to the Supreme Court for his desired outcome, what about everybody else? Do they call a new election? Does everybody go to court even for local races too? What about congressional contests or senatorial elections? Trump's claim spoils all the races, doesn't it? Mayors, sheriffs, council members, auditors, bond issues, tax levies, all of it gets tossed into dispute if Trump gets his way.

I just can't see Republicans going along with this without a single shred of evidence that votes were illegally cast other than Trump's wild assertions.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-23 10:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Tony, the article addresses that question. The issue is that post election day vote counts skew strongly democratic. So by tainting the voting, ------- and the republicans can go with the election day results and throw out any and all other votes. Since the election day voting will be more republican, by throwing out ballots, he will be skewing the results republican down ticket.

And, you should REALLY, stop thinking republicans won't do something. Cause they inevitably will, if it corrupts something to their advantage.

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 10:11 PM | Reply

Trump knows he's going to be indicted if he loses, so he's doing everything and anything he can try to stay in the WH.

Will a new SC with a 6-3 'conservative' majority really go along with that and destroy democracy in the process?

#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-09-23 10:19 PM | Reply

Yes

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 10:20 PM | Reply

Though as I understand it many or most of the fights will not be in the sc

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 10:20 PM | Reply

At least Mao got the accent right.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-23 10:23 PM | Reply

Today, Trump said this election "will end up in the Supreme Court," which tells us everything about his strategy: challenge the election outcome until it ends up in the Supreme Court where he hopes partisan tribalism will drive conservative justices to keep him in power.

twitter.com

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-09-23 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When asked about committing to a peaceful transition of power Trump said "get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very ... there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation, the ballots are out of control."

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-23 10:27 PM | Reply

Gal, it won't be that simple, as i understand it, there is only so much even the SC can do. It comes down to which state is an issue, which party is in power, how they chose their electors.

If Biden doesn't concede, we could have dueling electoral counts.

Hillary's advice to Joe is don't concede under any circumstances.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 10:29 PM | Reply

The only hope in this scenario would be that the States don't corruptly appoint their fake Electors in time (perhaps because the Democrats can thwart them long enough), and the U.S. House deciddes because the State defaults/forfeits.

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-23 10:33 PM | Reply

And why do you think the republicans are spending do much time and effort on this
They are preparing for it

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 10:34 PM | Reply

Relying On the republicans doing the right thing is foolish

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-23 10:35 PM | Reply

Tony, the article addresses that question. The issue is that post election day vote counts skew strongly democratic. So by tainting the voting, ------- and the republicans can go with the election day results and throw out any and all other votes. Since the election day voting will be more republican, by throwing out ballots, he will be skewing the results republican down ticket.

Of course Trump is preparing for this because he deludedly believes that every single Republican anywhere will do anything and everything he wants them too. With all the time and money it takes to run for office, no one but Trump wants to see all of that go down the drain in service of only Trump's criminal ego. None of the other races will be decided without counting all the legal ballots regardless of how they're cast - because that's what each state's law says must happen - so Trump's scenario only works for him and the Electoral College.

Trump can claim that his race is rigged, but what about every other candidate on each ballot? NONE of them will make that claim because they know it isn't true. Everyone knows and understands that the ballot counting is going on as normal, so why would they jump on Trump's crazy train to nowhere and hurt themselves in the process?

So this leaves Trump with nothing but his own assertions that the ballots are corrupted while everyone else will claim that they are absolutely normal - BECAUSE THEY ARE! Do you really think hundreds of other races will be thrown into dispute because of only Donald Trump when each state and locality is doing exactly what their state has always done - and there is no actual internal hint of any problems?

The only other option I can think of now is that we could end up with another Bush v. Gore scenario. Maybe the SCOTUS will allow Trump to claim the presidential mail-in ballots are invalid but leave the states to decide about all the other races on each individual ballot. And the states would allow all legal ballots to be counted based on whatever standard each state's law already dictates.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-23 11:06 PM | Reply

We're coming for your gay marriage and infanticide.

I'm curious as to why you want to take away gay marriage.

What's in it for you?

#20 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-09-24 12:25 AM | Reply

We're coming for your gay marriage and infanticide.

I'm curious as to why you want to take away gay marriage.

What's in it for you?

#21 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-09-24 12:25 AM | Reply

Will a new SC with a 6-3 'conservative' majority really go along with that and destroy democracy in the process?
#9 | POSTED BYAMERICANUNITY

Serious question:

When it was on the line, when have conservatives ever supported democracy?

I give a hat tip to the many handfuls of Republicans who have crossed the line in 2020. But it may be too little, too late.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-24 01:32 AM | Reply

The only hope in this scenario would be that the States don't corruptly appoint their fake Electors in time (perhaps because the Democrats can thwart them long enough), and the U.S. House deciddes because the State defaults/forfeits.

#16 | Posted by YAV

Don't hope for that scenario since if it goes to the House of Representatives, each state gets but a SINGLE vote. That means that Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, gets the same number of votes as does California, which has a population of nearly 40 MILLION.

OCU

#23 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-09-24 01:45 AM | Reply

FTA:

President Donald Trump "would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly," The Atlantic's Barton Gellman wrote, adding that "the longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."


#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-24 03:19 AM | Reply

This is insane.

Between his plan to plant electors in swing states.

And this:

"Well, we're going to have to see what happens," Trump said. "You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster."Pressed further, Trump said: "We'll want to have " get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very " we'll have a very peaceful " there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace in June whether he would accept the election results, Trump said he would "have to see" and claimed that mail-in voting will "rig the election."

www.msn.com


Trump has crowned himself king.

Trumpers are still determined to vote for the death of our country.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-24 03:20 AM | Reply

It won't work. Sorry. It's like the Apple Dumpling gang trying to hold up a bank, it won't end well for them. It will only end up with more of them is prison.

They are scared --------, Biden is looking like 350-400 EC votes, that's why they are kicking up all of this dust.

#26 | Posted by A_monson at 2020-09-24 05:37 AM | Reply

"The only hope in this scenario would be that the States don't corruptly appoint their fake Electors in time (perhaps because the Democrats can thwart them long enough), and the U.S. House deciddes because the State defaults/forfeits."
#16 | Posted by YAV

That's not quite the way it works, YAV

If a state fails to appoint electors (for any reason) they forfeit their electoral votes.

As for the House of Representatives . . . (if there's no swearing in by noon, January 20,2021)

Since the Constitution does not allow for an "extension" or a "hold over" of an administration, and demands that the United States ALWAYS be represented by a legal authority, the House is required to appoint a pro tem as Acting President, with all the authority of an elected president, for as long as necessary.

(Trump does not want Nancy Pelosi sitting in his seat in the Oval Office.) ~ LOL

#27 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-09-24 06:05 AM | Reply

YAV

Also . . . .

If Trump continues to play his games with the election, his lawsuits could have a head on collision with January 20,2021 ~ in which case the House will appoint a pro tem and Trump will be charged with Trespassing and politely escorted off the property.

No sitting president wants that to happen.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-09-24 06:23 AM | Reply

MONSON

"They are scared --------, Biden is looking like 350-400 EC votes, that's why they are kicking up all of this dust."

I'd say you're right. I think Trump has received some bad news in the last couple days and now he's sweating bullets.

#29 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-09-24 06:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jfc he's not right

How does a president win?
EC votes and his opponent concedes
------- is doing everything he can to claim the votes have him win
And do you think he will ever concede? Seriously

Put another way Biden could get 70% of the votes and 75% of the EC votes and ------- would still claim victory

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-24 07:38 AM | Reply

This is what I asked about in the nooner yesterday because I wondered how likely he could away with it. I imagine Trump would do anything possible to remain POTUS.

#31 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-09-24 08:40 AM | Reply

Justa read this article it lays out the scenarios
And is pretty scary

www.theatlantic.com

#32 | Posted by Truthhurts at 2020-09-24 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#7 Ya, I read it yesterday as well. It was shocking to say the least. I hope it doesn't come to that. If it does then I sure hope the Dems retake the Senate.

#33 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-09-24 08:53 AM | Reply

We've got a crazy person yanking our chain.

Remember, Trump has failed at everything he's tried to do. He's long on threats and short on follow through.

#34 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-09-24 10:20 AM | Reply

Remember, Trump has failed at everything he's tried to do. He's long on threats and short on follow through.

#9 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

Actually he hasn't.

He is currently in power and he wants to stay that way because if he doesn't he will face indictments and prosecution for his crimes.

Read the book "Disloyal" written by his personal mob lawyer Michael Cohen.

He does not always win but he wins enough. He gets things done because he can outlast and outlawyer most people.

This election looks like it will be decided by the lawyers.

Welcome to Trumplandia.

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-09-24 12:15 PM | Reply

President Donald Trump "would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly"

Highly unrealistic even in Trump's world. The right of citizens to vote for their presidential electors is enshrined in state statute, and in some cases state Constitutions. A state legislature to change the way electors are appointed after people have already started voting would be incredible, and to change a state Constitution would require approval by the voters. I simply don't think there is time, political will or ability to do this.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-24 01:47 PM | Reply

"I just can't see Republicans going along with this without a single shred of evidence that votes were illegally cast other than Trump's wild assertions."

That's a good point. I don't know how many Repubs like Peter Griffin enough to fall on a sword and sacrifice their own careers for him. Although they may see the possibility of future reward as being worth the risk.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-24 03:06 PM | Reply

Kayleigh McEnany: Trump will accept "free and fair" election, no answer on if he loses
www.axios.com

...White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Thursday that President Trump will "accept the results of a free and fair election," but did not specify whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses to Joe Biden....

Is Pres Trump implying that he would only consider the election to be "free and fair" if he wins?

#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-09-24 03:07 PM | Reply

Is Pres Trump implying that he would only consider the election to be "free and fair" if he wins?
#27 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

He will have to win the electoral college AND the popular vote by millions and millions and millions for him to consider the election to be "free and fair." Read that again: millions and millions and millions...Maybe even billions maybe...who knows, really?...I don't think anyone knows...nobody knew how difficult health care could be...

#39 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 03:11 PM | Reply

"When asked about committing to a peaceful transition of power Trump said "get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very ... there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation, the ballots are out of control."

So, the good news is that Trump has spent most of his career pissing off senior military leadership. Without their support, it would be very difficult to sustain an unconstitutional administration.

I think it would be difficult for him to do so if he had the military with him...

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-24 03:11 PM | Reply

"The only hope in this scenario would be that the States don't corruptly appoint their fake Electors in time (perhaps because the Democrats can thwart them long enough), and the U.S. House deciddes because the State defaults/forfeits."

So...apparently you were paying attention in civics class while I was sleeping. So what exactly are you talking about?

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-24 03:12 PM | Reply

"When it was on the line, when have conservatives ever supported democracy?"

In the US?

Never. We don't live in a Democracy.

Thank god.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-24 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Is Pres Trump implying that he would only consider the election to be "free and fair" if he wins?
#27 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-09-24 03:07 PM
---

That's what Dems are saying. Now pretend to be outraged for me

#43 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-09-24 03:15 PM | Reply

In the US?

Never. We don't live in a Democracy.

Thank god.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at

Very Right-wing individuals have advanced this meme for years. Because, you understand, you can't mount a coup against something that never existed.

#44 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-24 03:45 PM | Reply

Very Right-wing individuals have advanced this meme for years

It's actually people who have completed an 8th Grade government class who have advanced this meme for years.

Because it's true.

#45 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-24 03:48 PM | Reply

Because it's true.

#34 | Posted by Mao_Content at

It's pedantic and stupid.

You have direct democracies, such as ancient Athens.

You have representative democracies, such as ours.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-24 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Whenever the Right-wing is in a particular fever to burn this country down and advance a Principate they tell us it's all OK because we weren't a democracy anyway.

#47 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-24 03:53 PM | Reply

"it's all OK because we weren't a democracy anyway."

Bingo.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-24 03:55 PM | Reply

When you interesting people are told by Donald Trump that you no longer live in a democracy that never existed in the first place, you're going to be comforted by your retarded recollections of 8th Grade Civics.

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-24 03:55 PM | Reply

I simply don't think there is time, political will or ability to do this.
#11 | POSTED BY JOE

What about a ton of cash?

That seems to speed up a lot of things.

#50 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-24 03:55 PM | Reply

"When it was on the line, when have conservatives ever supported democracy?"

In the US?
Never. We don't live in a Democracy.
Thank god.
#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

^
See?

It's just like David Frum said:

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-24 03:59 PM | Reply

What Joe said. Also, there are other candidates on these ballots possibly including those being asked to ignore them. Self interest suggests they won't do that.

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2020-09-24 04:46 PM | Reply

#11 | POSTED BY JOE
#13 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Considering JOE's use of 'incredible' as the descriptor, hypothetically if it were to happen, would it be more probable or less probable that it would happen in 2020 relative to previous elections of the modern era?

#53 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 04:50 PM | Reply

Mao,

Gay relationships historically have very little structure and social pressure to conform the way straight relationships do.

My observation is gay relationships are rarely monogamous and stand little to nothing chance for lasting.

Straight marriages have a 50% chance of failure. So it's not like straight people have any reason to judge gay marriages in that department.

Gay people are more lonely than other people. It's really not a good situation for some gay people.

Any chance they might form relationships and find lifelong companionship needs to be supported.

I've said before if there's any one place where gays should not suffer the way they have for ages and still do around the world, it is America.

If not here...where?

That being said...gay couples need to keep their noses out of churches that don't want to endorse it and make trouble for them in the Supreme Court.

#54 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 08:18 PM | Reply

Bill,

What does it matter whether gay relationships last longer or shorter than hetero relationships?

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 08:30 PM | Reply

Sorry, Bill.

I misinterpreted your post. My question now, fully understanding your context, is the following: Why should religious beliefs be determined solely by heterosexuals?

#56 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 08:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Gay relationships historically have very little structure and social pressure to conform "

And what percentage of that is based on laws which told them they had no right to structure or normality? 100%...or more?

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-24 08:49 PM | Reply

Rsty,

"Why should religious beliefs be determined solely by heterosexuals?"

There's plenty of liberal churches out there that will gladly accommodate a same sex wedding.

I don't know what you're talking about except it sounds like you trolling.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 08:59 PM | Reply

" My observation is gay relationships are rarely monogamous and stand little to nothing chance for lasting."

That's from back in the day when legally they weren't allowed a chance for lasting. God knows, as promiscuous as I was, I would've been a lot more had I been told that relationship couldn't last...or at the least couldn't amount to anything legally.

Instead, I got to marry, and immediately got 1,400 legal advantages gays weren't allowed to have.

D'ya think that has any effect in the macro, or not?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-24 09:06 PM | Reply

" gay couples need to keep their noses out of churches that don't want to endorse it "

Because "Love thy neighbor as thyself" came with a caveat???

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-24 09:09 PM | Reply

No, Bill. I'm not trolling.

I'm speaking as a recovering Catholic that has witnessed numerous individuals be ostracized from their own community because of the feelings they feel towards people who just so happen to be of the same gender.

These churches benefit from avoiding taxes at the expense of a significant portion of those tax payers. Unless these churches and religions are willing to recognize ALL of their constituents, I don't believe they should be afforded such tax benefits.

BTW, take your troll accusation and shove it. If you can't handle the heat, get the fnkc out the kitchen.

#61 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:11 PM | Reply

My observation is gay relationships are rarely monogamous and stand little to nothing chance for lasting.

When? During your bisexual phase in the 70s or 80s? When being gay was a good enough reason to get beat up and treated like a pariah?

These days homosexual couples are getting married, adopting children, having surrogate children, buying houses together, living their lives just as happily as heterosexual couples.

It's amazing what having your life acknowledged and being treated as equal can do for people.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-24 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is it not ironic that Bill Johnson is demanding gays create their own religious community as opposed to those established religious communities (especially those that are Christian) acquiescing to accepting those people who are originally part of said communities?

What happened to the Christian ethic of acceptance and tolerance? Oh, that all goes away once it comes down to one guy wanting to put his member in another guys ------.

You Christians are paying WAY too much attention to the details.

#63 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rsty,

"I'm speaking as a recovering Catholic"

That's a personal problem.

If you're rejecting the Catholic Church, ok...that's your business.

I'm Protestant so you know it doesn't matter to me and don't agree with some of the things they teach.

Do I think I need to get upset about it? No.

Yes...you are trolling because I was not going off into church doctrine about who is right and who is wrong.

I merely said I think churches need to be left alone if they don't support same sex weddings and do not want that in their sanctuary.

If America is going to accommodate a large number of different sorts of cultures and beliefs, we're all just going to have to agree to disagree and get over the fact you aren't welcome everywhere and not everyone is going to think like you.

#64 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 09:22 PM | Reply

Yes...you are trolling because I was not going off into church doctrine about who is right and who is wrong.

If I was trolling, I would own up to it. Suck it up.

I merely said I think churches need to be left alone if they don't support same sex weddings and do not want that in their sanctuary.

And considering those churches are benefiting from tax breaks, they should beholden to social norms that tax payers have established. Otherwise, pay your god damned taxes like everyone else.

If America is going to accommodate a large number of different sorts of cultures and beliefs, we're all just going to have to agree to disagree and get over the fact you aren't welcome everywhere and not everyone is going to think like you.
#64 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I'm all about it. However, some of us that choose to disagree are not afforded the benefits that churches are. So how about we even the field considering the ABUSES some churches have implemented over centuries of tax avoidance?

#65 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:29 PM | Reply

Rsty,

I'm not interesting in debating church doctrine with you.

Go to a church where you feel comfortable.

Sounds like to me you're still feeling guilty for turning away from the Catholic Church.

Don't turn away from Christ.

The Catholic Church isn't the only place you can find Him.

#66 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 09:32 PM | Reply

I merely said I think churches need to be left alone if they don't support same sex weddings and do not want that in their sanctuary.

Two questions.

How many churches are being forced to preform wedding ceremonies for homosexuals?

How many churches preach the homosexuality is a sin (some going as far to imply acts of violence should be carried out against them)?

I haven't heard of anyone forcing churches to do anything.

I have heard, read, seen homosexuals verbally attacked and persecuted by conservative church pastors preaching hate. I have seen documentaries of pray the gay away camps.

These are the people you believe are going to help save your soul? Through hate and judgment?

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-24 09:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How many churches are being forced to preform wedding ceremonies for homosexuals?
#67 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2020-09-24 09:34 PM

How many times have you been divorced?

#68 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-09-24 09:41 PM | Reply

Rsty,

"What happened to the Christian ethic of acceptance and tolerance?"

If that's what you're expecting to hear in church, no wonder you're disillusioned.

#69 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 09:42 PM | Reply

Sounds like to me you're still feeling guilty for turning away from the Catholic Church.

Your intrinsic bias speaks to you loudly and convincingly. I remember what it felt like, having my thoughts be determined by such a mindset.

Don't turn away from Christ.

From my perspective, Christ turned away from me long before I realized he and the trinity refused to protect millions (yes, millions) of children from abuse. The Protestant Reformation was the right move away from the original church, but abuses continued throughout the hundreds, nay thousands, of denominations that subsequently came from it. This is not debating church doctrine, this is recognizing and acknowledging history and how these institutions have shaped our society, both positively and negatively. Until these institutions are willing to step forward and acknowledge the harm they've CAUSED, the benefits provided by these institutions will always be considered minimal in my book.

The Catholic Church isn't the only place you can find Him.
#66 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

No fnkcing ----. And philosophically, that's a major issue for me. There are thousands of variations of Christ's religion, yet logically, only one can be the truth. Odds are, none of them are the truth just as the other religions. None of these people or their beliefs are exceptional save for the relative aspect on the universal scale (i.e., their the only ones that we know of in the universe).

I don't need you to guide me anywhere near Christ. I need you to acknowledge the harm that has been done to certain populations in the name of upholding Christ's will.

#70 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:43 PM | Reply

If that's what you're expecting to hear in church, no wonder you're disillusioned.
#69 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

No, Bill.

That was trolling.

Ahahahahhaaha!!!

#71 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:44 PM | Reply

These are the people you believe are going to help save your soul? Through hate and judgment?
#67 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I don't think Bill believes that one bit.

He's all show.

Him labeling me a troll for the truth I provided is evidenced as exhibit A.

You know, the whole god of the gaps bull ----.

#72 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:46 PM | Reply

"I'm speaking as a recovering Catholic"
That's a personal problem.
#64 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

BTW.

I'm speaking as a recovering Catholic

That's a personal freedom.

Get the fnkc over yourself.

#73 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:48 PM | Reply

"I merely said I think churches need to be left alone if they don't support same sex weddings and do not want that in their sanctuary."

You know the "church" does not want to be "left alone".

Churches of any religion or flavor thereof need to obey the law of the land which is derived from the constitution like everyone else.

And they should out of politics if they want to be "left alone". And if you want to stay Tax exempt. It's none of your business unless...

Unless your real agenda is a theocracy in America.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-09-24 09:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Unless your real agenda is a theocracy in America.
#74 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2020-09-24 09:48 PM | FLAG: DAMN RIGHT!

Don't try to fool us that your bull ---- Christian doctrine is not just as dangerous as Sria law, Bill.

Get. The. Fnkc. Over. Yourself. BILLJOHNSON.

#75 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-24 09:51 PM | Reply

Rsty,

"Christ turned away from me"

Sorry you think that.

#76 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 09:58 PM | Reply

"Christ turned away from me"

Wasn't into the trombone part.

#77 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-09-24 10:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Rsty,

I left a church too I liked a lot.

No point in telling myself it was a bad church because it was a perfectly fine church.

Just not a healthy place for me.

I'm still a member of that church and would love to attend but I won't.

I sort of understand your hard feelings.

#78 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-24 10:14 PM | Reply

As many Evangelicals apparently understand the scriptures, Jesus carried an AK and used in on groups of women who had had abortions.

Which man'splains why they are willing to put up with cretins like Donald Trump.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-24 10:36 PM | Reply

uses it

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-24 10:47 PM | Reply

"If that's what you're expecting to hear in church, no wonder you're disillusioned."

Yep.

If you expected "Love Thy Neighbor" from a church purporting to follow the Bible, boy have you got another thing coming!

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-25 12:26 AM | Reply

anything short of another landslide for Trump will definitely smell like low tide at rsty beach.

#82 | POSTED BY H8TANK

There will not be a landslide for Trump.

There was never going to be a landslide for Trump.

The majority of Americans hate Trump, for the simple fact that he is a puke.

That is likely the reason they also hate you.

#83 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-25 09:05 AM | Reply

ballots for Trump were just found in a dumpster in PA

#82 | POSTED BY H8TANK AT 2020-09-25 08:50 AM | FLAG:

Yeah. Can't help but wonder who really put them there.

#84 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-25 09:07 AM | Reply

#85

BFD, Trump hasn't even reached Rutherford B. Hayes status you dolt!

en.wikipedia.org

#86 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-09-25 02:33 PM | Reply

"interracial couples need to keep their noses out of churches that don't want to endorse it"

Edited to provide historical context.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-25 02:39 PM | Reply

Considering leftists in Texas just got charged with voter fraud and ballots for Trump were just found in a dumpster in PA, anything short of another landslide for Trump will definitely smell like low tide at rsty beach.

#82 | POSTED BY H8TANK

Like a good doggy your masters put a treat on the top of your nose and you don't eat it until you're given the command.

God damn Trump supporters are such stupid, gullible rubes.

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-25 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's nice to see in a thread about the potential upending of American voting rights that we're discussing same sex marriages and Bill's favorite church. If he wasn't such a simpleton i'd say he was derailing threads on purpose.

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-25 03:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

I still think the logistics of such a change are impossible, but it's worth noting that, at least in one state, Wisconsin Republicans aren't ruling this out and have issued a bunch of non-denial denials.

Assembly Rep. Scott Allen (R):

Not news. Don't ask stupid questions that Democrats want you to ask. Find some news to report on.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R):
I've not been contacted by anyone and there's no such effort in Wisconsin. The only people who have been working to undermine the election are those who want to ignore the voters in their state and grant electors to the winner of the national popular vote... The Electoral College has worked for more than 200 years and I support the current system"
Who cares if he's been "contacted" by anyone? And his deflection to the NPVC is noted, but notice how neither of these fools just comes out and says "i will not vote to change the laws on how our electoral system works."

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-25 03:25 PM | Reply

"I merely said I think churches need to be left alone if they don't support interracial weddings and do not want that in their sanctuary."

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-25 04:44 PM | Reply

You know what's awesome about that East Texas "fraud" is that it happened because of Texas law preventing anyone from requesting a mail-in ballot unless they meet some strict requirements - one of them being disabled.

So the "fraud" was that the ballots were requested by people claiming they were disabled, but they weren't, so they could vote absentee.

There's no indication that the voter was defrauded, or that the vote was 'stolen'.

And to make things even more fun Texas' Governor recently said "just say you have a medical reason and get your ballot, we won't prosecute you" because so many people wanted to vote by mail-in due to COVID-19. Of course the State's Att'y General Paxton said "oh no, we'll prosecute you!"

Oh course he's voted mail-in claiming he was entitled to do so...

What a state.

www.texastribune.org

#93 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-25 04:46 PM | Reply

Doofy,

You can extrapolate to all sorts of things all of which is deviating from my point.

I doubt there will be a case going to the Supreme Court about churches refusing an interracial couple.

But eventually I would bet a deep pocketed gay couple will challenge a church just like the bakeries.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-09-25 08:54 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort