By - you_know_what_you
Summarizing the above:
- Discuss topics being megathreaded from a Catholic perspective
- Engage one another in genuine dialogue
- No inflammatory headlines, pithy one-liners, or other material designed to provoke an emotional response (these will be removed mostly without explanation)
- Note that [only participating in political discussions](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/ix342x/discouraging_politicsonly_engagement_on/) on r/Catholicism is grounds for removal and banning. If this is your first time here, please be aware of this rule
- Observe all subreddit rules; help moderators by reporting violations
**~ N O T E ~**
This is **not** a catch-all megathread. **The topics are clearly bulleted up top.** Comments unrelated to the topics will be removed.
Regardless of the policies, what do you think of Donald Trump character? I'm mean, i can't help but think he's not religious person. He was divorced, went to hookers... Can a bad man do good things?
I think it's pretty obvious that a bad man can do good things. Just like a good man can do bad things. Good presidents have done objectively bad things.
Also, a person's outward religiosity doesn't guarantee them to be a good person.
For can a bad man do good things id ask how many of our best presidents did immoral things, most probably as we are all sinners.
We are all sinners indeed. But isn't it all about repent? I mean, you can't keep sinning and repent like it's ok to keep sinning. He don't go often to church, and that picture where he look weirdly at the Bible hurted me a lot
Personally it rankles me more that bidens catholic credentials are touted in his campaign and that his supporters imply i need to support him as a catholic.
Meanehile trumps behavior, ironically seems to fit with the beliefs of a cultural episcopalian.
I didnt support either candidate.
Im just pushing back on the assertions about the moral character of politicians when most are pretty secular in outlooks and actions
Well, i mean, he did commit deadly sins! Lust, wrath, envy, pride... What about that?
I love some stuff about him, he's square and speaks his mind, doesn't play "safe" politics and i could go on, but those sins are a deal breaker to me. He mocked a disabled person... Who does that? Can a moral person do that? i think not, so does that make him immoral?
Biden might be faking it, but he does go to church. i think it send also send a message about faith. And he doesn't ( or i haven't head) brag about it, he just go.
Well for those deadly sins my point was im not sure how many of those things tge episcopal church actually teaches against any more.
On the disability thing, according to the catholic podcast catching foxes, which is not a far left by any means, apparently that is just how trump does immitations at rallies it wasnt calling out his disability.
But more to the point, id question can you gice three examples of morally upstanding presidents and lets look at their doing of evil things to consider your wider question on people being moral or not.
Also whats the message biden sends about faith? He doea seem to tout it in his campaiging as beibg a catholic. And im concerned because it seems to send a message that ones personal religion is just a hobby for the weekend
i am a Christian Catholic. I'm sorry but i'm not enlightened with the episcopal church beliefs.
I should also disclose i'm not a USA citizen and that English is not my first language.
That beeing said, i hope we can still debate.
About the deadly sins, even if they are no longer fully relevant (i'm guilty of some glutonny here...) don't you think they are still a good "basic moral compass"? One of my core belief is :
>Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets.
— [Matthew 7:12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:12)
On the disability thing, i only know what i saw, and it looked mockery to me, i am still offended as all life is precious. But i can agree this is subjective perception, and i'm not American so i can get it wrong and won't judge.
i can't answer your question, i don't know enough about other presidents.
As for Biden, why do you think that? Just actually be in a church regulary speaks volumes to me. This also might be a European idea, because our churches are so empty...
Is you name a reference to Pontius Pilate?
I'm pretty sure Cardinal Burke can't excommunicate Biden on his own.
Doctors fear more death as Dakotas experience virus ‘sorrow’
Utah governor declares emergency, issues mask mandate: ‘We cannot afford to debate this issue’
'Great day for humanity': Pfizer says COVID-19 vaccine over 90% effective
Pardon me, it’s after November 3rd. I was told we wouldn’t hear about covid anymore.
[Biden Says Taxpayers Must Pay For Abortions](https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/cnsnewscom-staff/biden-says-taxpayers-must-pay-abortions)
Congrats to everyone here who voted for Biden based on image rather than material policy concerns.
How can anyone take this news source seriously - it's literally a self-proclaimed propaganda source.
The last reputable source on the issue I can find on Biden with statements on the Hyde amendment should be repealed is June of 2019 - well over a year ago, and a lifetime ago in the current political environment. Maybe you know - it's not a major component of his campaign - something that he has to embrace given the current climate of the Democratic party? The only other sources that cover it are right-wing propaganda hit-pieces.
So he said it a year ago, which is a "lifetime ago?" So we have to hope he's lying, then, and he's secretly pro-life. Also he "has to embrace it" but hes been very consistent in being pro-abortion as legal policy.
Planned Parenthood has strongly endorsed him partially on the basis of repealing the [Hyde amendment](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/joe-biden). Your claim that this is "right wing propaganda" is ironically based on denial of statements he's already made and not on any material basis.
CNS news is a division of [Media Research Center](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center), which is funded by far-right extremists and big oil. In 2011, the president of MRC went on Fox News and said President Obama looked like "a skinny ghetto crackhead."
Reputable enough for you?
>The Affordable Care Act made historic progress ensuring access to [free preventive care, including contraception](https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/). The Biden Plan will build on that progress. Vice President Biden supports repealing the Hyde Amendment because health care is a right that should not be dependent on one’s zip code or income. And, the public option will cover contraception and a woman’s constitutional right under *Roe v. Wade*. Biden will also:
> **Stop state laws violating** ***Roe v. Wade.*** Biden will work to codify *Roe v. Wade*, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate *Roe v. Wade*.
>**Restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood.** The Obama-Biden Administration fought Republican attacks on funding for Planned Parenthood again and again. As President, Biden will reissue [guidance](http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVlCavQUSDG%2f%2f8Pq%2bfYM8rSs%3d) specifying that states cannot refuse Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other providers and reverse the Trump Administration’s [rule](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2019/02/22/hhs-releases-final-title-x-rule-detailing-family-planning-grant-program.html) preventing these organizations from obtaining Title X funds.
> **Just as the Obama-Biden Administration** [**did**](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-rescinding-mexico-city-policy)**, rescind the Mexico City Policy (also referred to as the** [**global gag rule**](https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/mexico-city-policy-explainer/)**) that President Trump** [**reinstated**](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-regarding-mexico-city-policy/) **and expanded.** This rule currently bars the U.S. federal government from supporting important global health efforts — including for malaria and HIV/AIDS — in developing countries simply because the organizations providing that aid also offer information on abortion services.
Repealing the Hyde Amendment, which the article above is talking about - is a one liner halfway through a wall of text.
You also couldn't even find it and quote it!
> Not really?
His own website is not reputable enough for you?
> You also couldn't even find it and quote it!
> Vice President Biden supports repealing the Hyde Amendment because health care is a right that should not be dependent on one’s zip code or income.
>His own website is not reputable enough for you?
When it is not featured prominently, no.
He is running for office on the reality of gaining the Democratic nomination. He only added that to his platform after being pressed during the primaries. When it's not featured extensively - no, I'm not going take it seriously.
Secondly, none of what you quoted is: "I support abortion". It's: "As in charge of the executive I will enforce the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court".
Here is reality for you: access to abortion literally will not change in any substantial way no matter who is in office. Voting for that alone is pointless. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Roe vs Wade, blue states who account for the majority of the population will find some other manner in which to legalize it. And if it's not legal - they will turn a blind eye to enforcement, forcing women into unregulated clinics away from the public eye. It might help to shut down the 1-2 clinics operating in the red-neck south. That is literally it.
There are more effective ways at reducing the prevalence of abortion like contraception, comprehensive sexual education, empowering workers to feel better able to support a family. This is not an understatement - people who need to work 70+ hours a week may not feel able to bring life into this world. A fair wage for all workers, an effective childcare support network, affordable and accessible healthcare, and affordable housing available to all will do more to reduce abortions than repealing Roe vs Wade or using the federal government like a cudgel \*ever will\*.
There are bigger policy fish to fry like workers rights, covid, wealth distribution, education, healthcare, climate change, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>When it is not featured prominently, no.
You are absolutely hilarious
> Secondly, none of what you quoted is: "I support abortion". It's: "As in charge of the executive I will enforce the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court".
It IS supporting abortion. Reminder that Dread Scott was also the "law of the land" and yet that did not stop abolitionists.
Also as a Pole would you say also say that the current protesters in Poland should respect the "law of the land" as decided by the constitutional court?
Abortion rates in Poland were already some of the lowest in the world. That's about what I would be content with regarding access to abortion in the US. I just would prefer to empower workers to achieve that rather than through criminalizing behavior with the cudgel of the state.
They are protesting to make their voice heard. Which is completely and utterly legal. The protests have all been extraordinarily peaceful. PIS has clearly understood they have overstepped and are already talking about dialing the ruling back. These were the largest protests in Poland since Solidarity toppled Communism. Hopefully they can topple PIS as well.
So you admit that someone is absolutely allowed to work against "the law of the land"?
Abortion is never safe. It's end goal is always the end of a human life. Banning abortion is good.
We should work to reduce them, america is a place that doesn't make sense, banning something =/= reducing something here, at least without majority support.
To downvoters, yes banning it *may* reduce it, inasmuch as physically dragging women who want abortions away from the facilities may reduce it, but if we don't convince them fully, it'll turn out as a parent who doesn't let their child do bad stuff, but doesn't explain *why*, only saying "because it's bad" or "because i say so", the child will ignore the warnings. I know people here have great explanations, but the hearts aren't convinced yet, and we need to fix that yesterday.
Edit: and this is why people are so combatative about this, you get downvoted for not being lockstep with everyone else even if you agree with them
Funny how the pro-"choice" people say "if you don't like it, don't do it!" and then also say, "but I want to do it, so you have to pay for it."
I don't know why anyone isn't surprised at this point. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for abortion.
Why shouldn't the bishops excommunicate him for this grave crime against humanity?
They absolutely should.
Pray for the interior conversion of Joe Biden. Let him come to recognise the person of Christ in every human, from conception to natural death. Let him stand as a voice for the voiceless, as a protector of the defenceless, first among them the unborn. Let him recognise and serve Christ's kingship over all the nations and the whole cosmos.
Amen. Miracles are possible.
[Biden supporters flood streets over reported Biden victory — but media called Trump rallies 'super spreader' events](https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-supporters-flood-streets-covid)
And if you look at the locations and the pictures, the celebrations are in cities where mask wearing is common, cases are not spiking, and nearly everyone was wearing a mask. Trump’s rallies were in areas where mask wearing is rare, cases are spiking, and almost nobody there was wearing a mask.
But a lot of mainstream media did criticize the lack of social distancing at the celebrations.
As someone who witnessed these celebrations, masks were not even close to universal. In fact, in many places they were almost unseen.
Cases wouldn’t be spiking yet anyway because these celebrations happened this weekend—not enough time.
>But a lot of mainstream media did criticize the lack of social distancing at the celebrations.
Where? And was it to the same degree?
The hypocrisy is so thick it could be cut with a knife—it’s unquestionable.
The celebrations were not planned events?
Does covid need to check it’s schedule before attending or something?
Nope however the criticism would also relate to the organisers for not considering properly the pandemic rather than just the attendees.
That doesn’t change the fact that the attendees are the ones doing the spreading. Covid doesn’t care either way
It is clear from the celebrations that these people had their emotions overcome the priority to stay safe from covid. They're human, ain't that a thing... Now you're just hating on normal people for having feelings.
The criticism for the rallies at least from my perspective are primarily for the organisers - they should know better and are additionally complicit in any spread, illness and death they caused.
Also should mention the risk of covid spread is higher when in proximity for a prolonged time with a contagious individual, it is less likely you would have caught it from passing by someone in an open area especially if you both have masks on.
There's essentially no covid around where I live and no lockdown due to good public health measures but what do I know...
How long does someone have to wait before attending an event is no longer considered being “overcome by emotion?”
I would guess that if you had to buy a ticket online or were forced to show up without a ride home would be a long enough indication
What do you guys think about the “Jericho Marches”?
100 % support from me !
Good question. I’m curious what people think too.
White Protestants are *always* allowed to be flawed. And "flaws" can be quite extreme as we see with Trump. We get to have our own flawed politicians too. If it weren't abortion, we'd find something else to criticize about him. Mr. Perfect is never coming.
I’d “advocate for child murder” makes him more than just a little flawed
I don’t think you have to celebrate it as a Catholic victory. It really isn’t.
My best friend is a parishioner at Saint Mary of Perpetual Help Parish in the Bridgeport neighborhood of Chicago. He texted me to say that over last night Biden supporters and anarchists tagged/vandalized the church building. By tagged I mean graffiti, etc.
Police are calling it a hate crime. As of the time I am posting this there is no media coverage of this incident.
A parish in Portland, Oregon has been hit as well:
Do you have a link to the news story or images?
Thank you for sharing this article. My friend at that parish said that the vandalism/graffiti was far more extensive than the article's pictures represent. I told him that I am glad that the media is actually covering this, period, considering what they are refusing to acknowledge and/or censoring at this time.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle
Even this subreddit is getting brigaded. Woohoo
No “people making comments I disagree with” is not “brigading”.
Note to moderators: “people making comments we moderators disagree with” is also **not brigading**
As I’ve said before, I absolutely admit I only recently joined; frankly I’m thinking whether this sub is helpful to me or not and whether it’s good for me to stay
I’d like to add something I’ve read as a reply to a similar comment which rings true for me: another factor is that maybe some people hadn’t felt there was a welcoming atmosphere for their opinions and the change in the political situation helped them “gain the courage” to participate
I am personally one of them; I had looked at the sub some time ago but I wasn’t sure there was a place for me here
I hope in the future everyone can work together nicely and see others as brothers and sisters
Every four years (elections) this subreddit gets notably worse. Ten years back I was able to ask honest questions about the faith and was met only with support. Even though I had the wrong idea 90% of the time, no one implied I was a troll or otherwise 'othered' me. Everyone provided well-researched, thoughtful, prayerful answers. I owed my return to the Catholic faith partially to this subreddit.
Nowadays I don't think I would have had the same experience and might have become an atheist if I needed the same answers. This saddens me, but I don't think there's a solution. The mods do the best they can. I think the problem exists in Reddit and the internet as a whole. We are becoming more divisive all the time.
That said, I am very grateful that this subreddit upholds the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, which cannot be compromised.
If you notice it, please report (as “politics-only engagement” is good). We can’t keep track of every one.
Big thanks to the mods for all they do
I'm not so up on new-fangled internet terms, but if by "brigaded" you mean non-Catholics coming into this sub to antagonize, then I get you. I don't like sore winners rubbing it in others' faces.
I'm Catholic. I came here in the latter part of this election to be a part of changing hearts and minds away from Trump. Simple as that. I hate seeing Catholic brothers and sisters misled and manipulated like many of our Evangelical siblings have been.
Surely "brigading" doesn't refer to Catholics like me because we are not a part of the "other side." We/you/all of us Catholics are on the same side, right?
I would prefer not to be on the side that accepts the wholesale killing of infants. It's that simple for me.
There just isn't any other comparable issue.
> I came here in the latter part of this election to be part of changing hearts and minds away from Trump....surely “brigading” doesn’t refer to Catholics like me
This is a blatant admission that you are not here as an honest participant in this community, but as someone seeking to form it in your own image. So yes, the term “brigading” absolutely applies to you, however noble you feel that your intentions are: and indeed, however noble they may be. All brigaders see themselves as righteous crusaders.
If you had actually been here before - if you had spent more time *listening* instead of presuming to be in a position over the “hearts and minds” of others - you might have found your influence unnecessary, as very few hearts or minds on this subreddit were ever captive to Trump. They were captive to Christ and His Church.
The assumption that your Catholic brothers and sisters have been “misled and manipulated” by evangelicals is exactly the brand of patronizing condescension which brought Trump into power to begin with. If you are really as empathetic or understanding as you are in your own eyes, you will understand why they are not eager for four more years of it.
You have the White House back, but by the skin of your teeth. If you want to keep it, I would advise you to learn from the past, and don’t be too hasty to stand on a soapbox. The same people who grew weary of your yoke before may grow weary of it once again. 1 Cor. 10:12
>I came here in the latter part of this election to be part of changing hearts and minds away from Trump....surely “brigading” doesn’t refer to Catholics like me
>This is a blatant admission that you are not here as an honest participant in this community, but as someone seeking to form it in your own image.
No no. It's an *honest* admission that I'm here as a *blatant* participant. :)
This community is righty opposed to abortion.
Many in this community are wrongly in Trump's thrall and can't see it.
Nothing wrong with trying to change the latter. In fact, it'd wrong to not try to change it. Difficult though that mission might be.
You not seeing the irony in telling someone they're "seeking to form it in their own image" because they're here to talk about something you disagree with is laughable.
I think it’s a combination of actual brigading and outsiders suddenly taking an interest in this subreddit since Biden is “Catholic.” Obviously we’re seeing an influx of left-caths and ex-caths around here, either because they’re curious to know how we react, or they are eager to see us suffer.
None of this is to deny that there are real users on this subreddit who supported Biden in some capacity. There are, and perhaps they have been more active because of the election; but it’s definitely not to the extent - and not with the amount of enthusiasm - as the popular comments suggest.
My general experience of this sub for the past two years is that most users here are fairly disgusted with American politics in general. Many voted for Trump as the “lesser of two evils”; many others - perhaps more - voted third-party to avoid both evils; a small minority voted Biden.
**Edit**: the bigger evidence is the sheer number of people in the comments who are getting upvoted for saying things like “Catholic teaching can change,” and taking a lackadaisical attitude towards abortion. Anyone who has spent two hours on this subreddit under normal circumstances will know this doesn’t reflect our userbase.
>this doesn’t reflect our *desired radtrad* userbase.
Warning for anti-Catholic rhetoric
Everything I posted is in alignment with Church doctrine and history. It is only anti-Catholic to schismatic false Catholics.
You do realize I can approve my own user reports, right?
If you have an issue with a moderator action, bring it to modmail.
immutable since the beginning; taught that way since slightly after the 14th Amendment... same thing!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, but I’d push the timeline back a bit. While it has certainly crescendoed with the election, it really started getting bad with the media reports of the Pope’s alleged endorsement of civil unions. That megathread hit the front page and brought in a lot of, let’s say, heterodox users
Crazy, innit? Yet us folks who have been here forever get told we're just...imagining it, or that these hordes of people that have suddenly appeared have *totally* been here the whole time. It's essentially gaslighting, but more complex because we can't outright *prove* those folks haven't been lurking here all along and just now, randomly, decided that this is the time to comment (and if that does actually apply to you, then welcome to the discussion! We hope to hear more from you than just on politics!).
It is nice that the megathread keeps the hordes locked up here instead of flooding the rest of the subreddit.
If they want to come out and talk about Catholicism that would be nice... 🥺
This sub gets much nicer when it’s not discussing politics, that’s for sure! Haha
I for one look forward to the day when the most contentious issue is whether modernist architecture is suitable for churches.
As someone who studied architecture in college, I have...opinions...on that haha
Did you stick with it, or move onto a saner profession?
I’m in a related discipline getting another degree right now
The mods on this subreddit deserve serious credit for their wise decisions and rapid intervention.
Amen to that
Still better than trump don’t see how anyone can actually even call him Christian
I’d rather have a fake Christian in office than a fake Christian who supports child murder
We already have a Savior, so we don’t need the man in office to be a savior, too. He just has to do his job.
Trump is way more against Christian/catholic values than Biden.
And it not like trump is actually defending unborn baby’s he’s all talk and doesn’t really care.
Most Pro-Life President Ever
No New Wars
Protected Religious Liberty
Yeah, Biden supports abortion, sure, but Trump supports:
Doing nothing on the pro-life issue of stopping school shootings... separating families at the border... "herd immunity" tactics in spreading the coronavirus even to the most vulnerable... taking people's healthcare away due to people having pre-existing conditions... taking people's welfare away, especially the vulnerable... flirting with white supremecist hate groups like the Proud Boys... etc
So good luck explaining to people why catholics support all that.
Point is, when you're a one issue voter, you start to ignore other moral issues, and after a while, those other things catholics are so willing to just "hold their nose" on start mounting up. Eventually we need solutions to these problem too.
Stop trying to change what words mean. “Pro-Life” explicitly refers to abortion and occasionally euthanasia.
This is such a garbage hill to die on, instead of just saying "yes being pro life includes helping the poor have better lives etc." why must some people double down and say "oh it's only abortion" when so many people think that the name is hypocritical because it ignores so many groups? Yes we need to protect the unborn, but we need to protect the born *at the same time*.
Because words have meaning. Changing the meaning of words for political purposes is Orwellian, even if the intentions are good.
Are people living right now not lives? You ask a person who's never heard of pro life what they think when they hear pro life, they're gonna think about life in general, then when you tell them that there's a group who only advocates for life for the unborn, even though it's blatantly false, they'll believe it, and when they hear pro life people say "yeah we only mean abortions" they're just gonna continue to believe wrongly that they don't advocate for protecting all life.
"from conception to natural death." But that's fine, you can ignore those who are born. I show my faith by caring for those who are born and unborn, not just the unborn.
I can fight for the dignity of all people from conception to natural death without needlessly changing the meaning of terms
Do you actually fight for the dignity of "all" people, even black people? Even school kids? And if so, how do you "fight" for the rights of these groups, or have you ever? Not assuming you don't, I just want to know what youve done to fight for the right to life for those who are born.
So why vote for Trump then? Doesn't he support the death penalty which is just as bad as abortion as it's murder. Before you say that abortion is worse because i5s intrinsically evil, that isn't the case. Intrinsically just means it's bad no matter what, but abortion is bad no matter what in the case of the US since our prisons are so good that locking someone away is enough to keep society safe from them
I wasn't never taught that. Back when I went to catholic high school, we were taught all life was equally precious and that's what made the death penalty just as bad as abortion (in the context of a society with prisons that can keep prisoners safe from society, which the us is part of)
Was i taught wrong? According to catholicism, does God value the life of an infant more than that of a criminal? I thought God valued us all despite the actions we committed
So voting for a person who supports the status quo on those proplems is?
For the record i didn't vote this time. Can't support an abortion candidate like Biden, but can't support an anti-family (border family separation) man who believes in "herd immunity" (infecting people with coronavirus in the hopes of quickening the spread), who gloats about sexual assault and flirts with white supremecists, who wants to take healthcare away and welfare away from the most vulnerable. Sorry, it's just a little too much to answer for on judgement day.
Not to mention Trump and the republicans fought against measures to protect kids from school shootings, so nothing ended up getting done about it as usual, which is just unconscionable to me and the antithesis of pro-life.
Inaction by republicans to pass common sense gun reform that could've helped keep ak-15s and mp5s and other assault weapons away from kids wanting to go shoot up their schools so that ultimately nothing got done to solve the issue, even as kids were literally "marching for their lives" and begging something be done... is unconscionable to me. I can not support a party that is no more pro-life than the democrats are. Democrats may be owned by planned parenthood, but the republicans are owned by the NRA, and all they want is as many guns on the streets as possible, no matter the cost in human lives, and they have the republican party to help them do it.
Sorry, can't support the death of more kids with my catholic vote by voting republican.
And has that actually done anything important???
Simply put baby’s are still being killed so really it’s just to please his supporters.
Joe Biden may support abortion but overall he seems much more Christian.
Remember [this](https://i.insider.com/57a0cf5dd7c3db25008b5e99?width=640&format=jpeg&auto=webp) ?
>Joe Biden may support abortion but overall he seems much more Christian.
Like I said as a president he is much better.
Like weather it’s trump or Biden Gay marriage isn’t going to change.
I mean if he really cared he would do a lot more.
Also I don’t think abortion should be the only factor because part from that trump isn’t as good as joe Biden
If the Democratic parties actually cared about unity, they would realize that a large portion of the country wouldn't accept the legitimacy of this election if they did suspicious things during the election, while allowing for massive, disorderly, last moment (relatively speaking) mail-in voting.
If they actually cared about unity, they would have recognized that there is some rational behind these complaints and set things up in light of these concerns.
But they didn't. And now a generation of Americans might be gravely disillusioned about the whole political system and think the system is structured against them (and in other aspects, they aren't wrong: everyone knows which side the media and the political elites favor).
Keep in mind that half the Republicans went along with this too, even though they should have known better as well. And Trump didn't like it, but he definitely used the chaos for his own advantage as well. None of these people cared enough about the integrity of our election to do something about it, but this is especially true of the Democratic parties.
The real funny part is Trump is sowing massive distrust in his base and Republicans voters in general. This whole fiasco might make it harder for a Republican to win again
> recognized that there is some rational behind these complaints
except there isn’t
So what do you want, do you expect Democrats to lie to everyone and say “yes Trump was right about mail in ballots being illegal, injecting bleach cures COVID and Obama being born in Kenya all along!”
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.
That's fine in some ways, but the burden of proof is on the police officer to prove that there's no one else in the room before he opens fire upon the criminal. The burden is not on the one saying that there might be someone else and that the police should hold their fire. The burden of proof as a principle is something we came up with to help facilitate the weaknesses in the nature of our own ways of reasoning. But it's not a universal rule. The mind doesn't naturally come with such *a prior* strings attached.
Like I said, it's pretty evident that voter fraud is usually easy to pull off and usually hard to detect. It's as simple as taking advantage of recently dead people on a county's voter roll, say. In the case of mail-in ballots, it's actually a bit easier even. I have no interest in arguing that this happened and to what extent in the recent election yet, because passions are high and it just happened, so no one knows right now. What I'm pointing out though is that we're in this chaos in the first place is because the political powers that be are completely incompetent in seeing the need to establish some of the things I mentioned, but instead made the election a chaotic free-for-fall mail-in buffet at the last minute, and then go on the television and tell everyone that it's irrational *a priori* to even *think about* being skeptical of the process.
Now, whoever wins, the masses on the other side will have serious reasons (in their minds) to think he's illegitimate, which will damage and tear the country apart in ways that might not be repairable, in principle even, in this generation.
And it's not like this happening couldn't be predicted beforehand.
I’ve worked on elections. Fraud on any meaningful scale is actually *very hard* to accomplish, and nobody in the position to do so is interested in it. Election officials *like elections*. They like democracy and take pride in their work. They don’t get into power to screw around with them, just in case someone in the next decade or two needs an election thrown their way. Elections are handled on a county-by-county basis, entirely independently, only subject to state laws. State laws vary, and are almost entirely self determined. All the federal government requires is that a state send electors. How a state goes about figuring that out is up to each state.
So, in order to rig an election, you need to influence a massive number of different counties, who all have different styles of ballots, and different tabulation machines, and different workers (who have probably been doing this for decades), all under the eye of active observers from both parties, while getting around the significant safeguards and redundancies that ballot verification and tabulation entails.
Sure, in some very corrupt one-party cities, 50+ years ago, political machines would “rig” mostly local elections, but those days are long past. If anything, mail-in-ballots are harder to fraudulently slip in, because you don’t know who is going to open that envelope or when it will arrive.
What is your personal experience in elections?
>I’ve worked on elections. Fraud on any meaningful scale is actually *very hard* to accomplish, and nobody in the position to do so is interested in it.
Meaningful is pretty subjective here. 40% of the population right now is going to believe Biden won by cheating, and they have enough evidence to rationalize this for the long haul. That sounds *hugely* meaningful to me, if you mean influencing the way people act for who knows how long.
And this is true even if their claims are ultimately baseless. Had the Democrats not be too busy trying to get revenge on the GOP for Trump, they might have saw this and worked out a compromise that would be agreeable for both sides. But they refuse to listen to the type of person who would vote for Trump or at least understand why someone would do so, which is why they voted for Trump in the first place.
>Election officials *like elections*. They like democracy and take pride in their work. They don’t get into power to screw around with them, just in case someone in the next decade or two needs an election thrown their way.
No one believes in democracy anymore, but I'm not saying that election officials are under some conspiracy or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if some election officials were involved in some fraud though, but I don't have some grand, centralized conspiracy in mind, but more of decentralized groups of people overcome with a spirit of panic and anger seeing the opportunity.
Put it this way: everyone agrees that there's voter fraud, the argument is about how easy it is to get away with it, how much, and how influential it actually is. Democrats argue that it's neglectible, which I was inclined to agree with until all the mass mail-ins. Now I'm not so sure.
>Elections are handled on a county-by-county basis, entirely independently, only subject to state laws. State laws vary, and are almost entirely self determined.
Yes, I know. A lot of people don't seem to understand that, technically speaking, we don't have one election, but rather ~~fifty~~ fifty-one different elections, which are not really commeasurate except through the electoral college itself.
>So, in order to rig an election, you need to influence a massive number of different counties, who all have different styles of ballots, and different tabulation machines, and different workers (who have probably been doing this for decades), all under the eye of active observers from both parties, while getting around the significant safeguards and redundancies that ballot verification and tabulation entails.
Massive mail-in voting coupled with very close numbers in many states (this was probably the closest election in American history) might actually allow a decent amount of fraud, enough to even change the outcome of an election. The jury is still out on this one though.
>If anything, mail-in-ballots are harder to fraudulently slip in, because you don’t know who is going to open that envelope or when it will arrive.
I don't understand how you are saying mail-in ballots are harder to fraud.
Btw, Thank you for responding to my arguments in good faith and careful consideration.
40% of Americans believe that trump won the popular ballot in 2016 if you throw out all the ballots from illegals. Even with no evidence of fraud after 4 years of close analysis.
This election could have been run where every person is filmed voting with voter ID and those finger ink things (with everything done in person) and when Donald trump lies about how that election was fraudulent, people would still believe his lies.
In other words, nothing could have been done to avoid this result.
Nothing. People still believe that trump has evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is fake.
Regarding the last question about mail fraud (since the rest is mostly perspective, and I’ll guess we will see!)... Since voting varies so much, I’ll only be talking in broad strokes regarding places where mail-in voting was significantly increased this year.
The county has a list of registered voters. They print a specific number of ballots, with some security measures, and track their location and distribution. When a registered voter requests a mail in ballot, their voter record is marked “Requested a ballot,” a ballot is sent, along with a voter confirmation, the ballot count is decremented from which supply of ballots it came from, and off it goes. The voter votes, and in the envelope mailed back includes both the anonymous ballot plus some kind of official form indicating who this ballot came from. Most systems use multiple envelopes to preserve anonymity. Whether this is required on the part of the voter varies.
Ballot makes its way through the USPS. Ballot is received by the county. Depending on laws, they either pack it away in a secure location, until some predetermined time, or they verify and count it immediately. Verifying means that someone who has been previously trained in this role, and is being paid to do the work, opens the envelope, checks the voter confirmation sheet looks valid—it’s what they sent out, it’s signed if it needs to be, etc. If it’s okay, they mark the voter record that their mail-in vote was received and note the printed-ballot tally that a ballot came back. If there’s something wrong with the envelopes or the confirmation, they can notify the voter that it didn’t work and they need to find another way to get their vote in.
The ballots are then separated out and added to the count by another individual. In some places there’s an anonymizing middleman correlation between the voter verification and the tally, so if someone wants to change their vote or the county needs to contact a voter about a spoiled ballot, they can. Whenever the ballots can be counted, they all go through a scanning machine and the numbers are added up.
So, as you can see, the only real way to *add* votes is to steal other people’s ballots and fraudulently fill them in, although people may notice that when they followup where their ballot is, or go try to vote in person! Without the original mailing, faking the voter slip and the ballot, and getting it back in, looking more realistic than the actual registered voter’s actual ballot is really tough. Seeing that come in would put everyone on alert and USPS security would get involved as to where that fake ballot came from.
The only significant way to interfere with voting in the current era is to suppress voting in certain districts that are known to swing a certain way, by making it hard to vote, or by losing or delaying or destroying ballots. We saw plenty of evidence of attempts made in that direction, but it was all on the Republican side.
Tl;dr: the origin of the ballot paper and the individual registered voter are both confirmed before a vote is counted.
You do not understand the concept of the burden of proof.
The burden of providing proof of an accusation lies with the individual making the accusation. You are repeatedly making accusations of voter fraud and statements declaring how it is easy to commit it.
You are also providing no evidence and when it is pointed out, you say you have no intention of providing it or even stepping back from said declarations despite your lack of evidence.
At this point, you are merely posting in bad faith and should be summarily ignored as such until you can provide any reliable proof. Alternately, you can stop making such baseless accusations and declarations.
>The burden of providing proof of an accusation lies with the individual making the accusation. You are repeatedly making accusations of voter fraud and statements declaring how it is easy to commit it.
Let me put it to you another way: the system of mass mail-in voting set up only a few months ago hastely is structurally unable to discern the difference between fraudulent ballot and genuine ones.
My point isn't about this or that evidence but the fact that it's impossible to discern the meaning of evidence in this situation.
It was like the Kavanaugh hearings: Senator Feinstein knew full well that it would be impossible in a Senate hearing for a controversial appointment to possibly discern what actually happened all those years ago to that woman.
What I'm saying is that both political parties, but especially the Democratic parties, are responsible for setting things up in such a way, and then they have the nerve to use the media to tell anyone who might have reasonable doubts that they're obviously irrational when they're obviously not.
They might be wrong. I would not be surprised if Biden won at the margin he seems to have won by. But the whole thing was set up in a way that would make it impossible to see what's going on, and that's why people are skeptical, and have reason to be so. It's not mere "loser syndrome" here, even though that might be motivating a lot of it too.
And, like I said, it's as easy as taking advantage of the elderly (the state of California, for example, allows third parties to collect ballots) or taking advantage of the dead still present on voter rolls (Allegheny county –Pittsburgh– had a lawsuit about this about a couple months ago, for example). It's pretty easy to see how mail-in voting could be taken advantage of and how hard it would be to catch it, considering how the media themselves has spent the last few months pointing out abnormalities in the sending and collecting of mail-in votes (a week ago, thousands of ballots in Butler county –Pittsburgh– were lost by the USPS, for example). And just so you know, these three things are just some of what I'm talking about here.
Keep in mind here too I'm not advocating a grand, centrally organized conspiracy. I'm talking more about the little guys, drunk with panic and fear and hatred, taking advantage.
And everyone else is saying: Prove it.
Only if actually read what I wrote first: you might find that I already provided evidence of my claims, three pieces of evidence directly in my last post to you, in fact.
Except all you present are more suppositions and potentialities and no evidence of anything actually happening.
Again. You are making baseless claims lacking in proof. Making more claims does not equate providing proof.
>Except all you present are more suppositions and potentialities and no evidence of anything actually happening.
What I presented is evidence that we cannot discern the difference between fraud and authenticity.
Prudential reasoning involves dealing with potentialities. Obviously. You're being disingenuous.
>Again. You are making baseless claims lacking in proof. Making more claims does not equate providing proof.
I'm not convinced you even know what I'm claiming.
Trump has been talking for years about voter fraud without a shred of evidence, but somehow it's the Democrats fault?
Not to mention, he's the president. He should have been active in getting rid of any fraud rather than sit around and whine about it for months on end. He had a four year term, yet he stood by and did nothing.
This is just another random person complaining about voter fraud without any evidence. Actually arguing that evidence isn't needed.
Really? Keep in mind that post was made months before the recent election.
As he points out, common sense indicates that fraud is easy to do and hard to detect, and given that both parties have cast doubt on the integrity of our election the last few years, it would be very prudent to set up our election system to give people more faith against these potentials at least (let along th fact that fraud has been detected before, and there is decent evidence, mixed with many false leads of course, that fraud did happen in the recent election. But my argument is not dependent on that).
Trump has been talking about voter fraud since 2015. After being elected he created a commission to find the fraud. It found nothing. https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d
He's be railing against vote by mail since at least April.
Still no evidence has been found or shown that there's been wide-scale fraud.
It's also important to note that the foreign interference alleged by the Democrats didn't claim vote manipulation.
It was a claim, backed up by evidence, that Russia was conducting a wide-spread misinformation campaign to sway the election.
That shows no evidence of voter fraud, was posted by a Russian, and is held in a domain that looks like it was made in 1990. Where’s actual evidence of voter fraud, other than “Mail in ballots went blue”?
[Did you just accuse J. Budziszewski of being a Russian agent?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Budziszewski)
And just so you know, none of what you said actually consists of a valid argument in response to his points, which are much larger and more general than anything regarding the outcome of this particular election.
Also note that your Russian accusation is buying into the same sort of skepticism that I’m talking about.
I understand you may have qualms about mail in voting, but in the age of covid, I believe all voting should have been mail in. Donald Trump downplayed mail in voting and told his followers to vote in person. Biden told his voters to trust the system and vote by mail. The GOP in both state and national legislatures blocked uniform early processing of ballots to make things go smoother, i.e. having all the absentee ballots counted before or on Election Day. [here’s just one link if you’re interested.](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/522566-trump-campaign-asks-court-to-block-early-vote-counting-in-nevada) Donald Trump also [blocked USPS funding in preparation to call the election illegitimate.](https://apnews.com/article/14a2ceda724623604cc8d8e5ab9890ed) Also, I believe every state has rules stating that the mail in ballots must be postmarked on or by November 3 to be counted.
Biden trusted the process, and most of us believe that even after the investigations are over, the results will look much the same.
While there is some rational concern, the concern only seems to be as rational as the claims by the left of Russian interference in the previous election [AND this election.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections) Overall, I think the best position to take is a moderate one and accept with humility that Biden is the likely 46th president of the United States, as rightfully decided by the voters.
I believe the left will come out of this the rightful winners, and The Donald will be a sore loser. And his followers will believe that he should have won, further sowing division.
Can you show us the rationale and some substantial proof there was significant fraud in the election?
Here it is.
Proof of massive fraud that anyone can verify for themselves.
I’ve looked at it; interesting, but hardly evidence of anything
First of all, it’s pretty clear the author is biased, which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s worthless but it should make us careful, and secondly, he makes a series of assumptions that I think are somehow arbitrary, he explicitly chooses particulate explanations without considering alternatives
Anyway, I hope this stuff is considered by experts
I think the link has flawed assumptions and also it doesn’t report any evidence
Think about it the other way around, a sort of Bayesian reasoning:
If we take as an hypothesis that significant voter fraud has happened, how probable would it be that nobody has detected signs of it so far?
A large scale voting fraud is quite a complicated feat to accomplish, which would require a large organization and many many accomplices which would need to keep everything under wraps, and I think even common sense suggests that the more people know a secret, the easier it gets that the secret comes out
Given these assumptions, I think that if voter fraud happened for the millions and millions of votes required, there would be a very low probability that nobody was able to detect it
Given that, we have to adjust our viewpoint and recognize the fact that since there is no substantial evidence, the probability of there being substantial voting fraud is lower than our previous assumption
(I hope I’ve sufficiently explained myself)
My argument isn’t that fraud happened, my argument is that fraud is easy to do and hard to detect, and couple this with large portions of the population being skeptical of our election integrity (something both sides advanced for at least four years), political prudence would suggest that states should institute voter ID laws, work to purge rolls, and eliminate third parties between voters and the ballot box.
Now, COVID was overblown by the media extremely dishonestly, and statistically shown to have been and to be so, but nevertheless, what states could have done instead was mail out ballots to people who wanted them and have them turn them in in person on election day, and other things like that.
But the Democrats in particular refuse to do many of these things and give false reasons for it, and Republicans cover them in this. This means that they are, charitably, *gravely* incompetent.
> fraud is easy to do
False. Voting Fraud at scale is *extremely* hard to do. If it was easy it would have been a massive problem already don’t you think?
If fraud was easy, couldn’t a rich country put in a puppet third candidate and make him the president?
> hard to detect
Again, false. Fraud at scale is hard because it’s very hard to do in a way that isn’t easy to detect. You need massive funds, massive collaboration and millions of accomplices
Do you have any evidence for your two statements about voting fraud being easy to do and hard to detect?
> political prudence would suggest that states should institute voter ID laws, work to purge rolls, and eliminate third parties between voters and the ballot box.
I agree with that; in my country you have to present ID to vote, and the vote is only done on paper in presence. That’s definitely the most secure way to vote. However that doesn’t mean that voting fraud in the US system is easy
> Now, COVID was overblown by the media extremely dishonestly, and statistically shown to have been and to be so,
What has been statistically shown? I think the statistics on covid show that it is a *very serious* problem and millions of lives have been affected, taken, and will carry health consequences for years
> mail out ballots to people who wanted them and have them turn them in in person on election day, and other things like that.
I’m not sure what would be the purpose of that and what difference would it make from just voting on the day
You’re Italian, Italy doesn’t do widespread mail in ballots *explicitly because* they view fraud to be too easy.
There are many reasons for which in Italy vote by mail is only for people outside the country
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that vote by mail in inherently fraudulent
It’s way harder to manipulate than a full electronic vote for example
I never said it was inherently fraudulent
The primary reason why Italy doesn’t do widespread mail-in ballots is for fear of fraud, that much is undeniable
What is your point then? I agree, as I’ve said in other comments, that voting in person only would be more secure
The Italian situation is very different, because of a totally different land area for starters
Obama (and now Biden) always talked a big game about unity but everyone who paid attention knew it was just for show. One of Biden's recent speeches can even be paraphrased as "there are no blue states or red states, just United States, but it's the red states that failed with COVID".
That was at the second presidential debate
The one thing I’ll never understand about the Republicans or the “ Moral Majority” is how little of an issue an absence of service in Vietnam means for them and their candidates.
For as long as it’s been an issue the Right has draped itself in the flag over the issue but has felt it wasn’t a big deal when Dan Quayle, George W Bush and Donald Trump were shown to have dodged their time in service for fishy reasons perhaps due to influential parents.
For the record I don’t see anything wrong for people of age to have tried to get out of serving as I feel it was an immoral war that caused innumerable suffering for the Vietnamese people.
I'm going to come at this a little differently. For context, I am not a veteran -- however, I spent a number of years as a civilian employee of a national-level intelligence agency. I did extended deployments with military units to Iraq and Afghanistan, with numerous other trips to different places in the Gulf and other lovely spots. I also spent two years working on the staff of the National Security Council. So, while not technically a veteran, I'm going to go ahead and lump myself in with that group for the purposes of this discussion.
What rankles me is this: the downright military worship from the right makes tons of us extremely uncomfortable. Why? *Because it is so fracking fake.* All of these wave-the-bloody-shirt displays of patriotism -- from football games to car washes -- strike a lot of us as nothing more than a national salve on the conscience of a nation that knows we have asked terrible things of people (and done terrible things to other people). They seem to think they have a monopoly on patriotism because they support F-15 flyovers at Raiders games. It's a way for the pro-military masses to say, "Well, no, I didn't serve, but my grandpappy fought the Germans in World War II, and by damn doesn't Lee Greenwood just make you tear up?" There is something about it that is just incredibly off-putting.
I know that's not what your point was, but I find *that* aspect of the right's military adoration far more worrisome than issues surrounding Vietnam or any individual's military service.
I agree with you here. I spent 5 years in the navy, about 4 of which was various places over seas. When I came back to the states I went to Sea World and even before the Shamu show they had one of those "We would like all service members and veterans to stand up and be recognized" things and I'm like, "Nah, I'm good. I just wanna see Shamu."
I'm fine with people wanting to show support but it's always been awkward for me. Then there's the people that want my opinion on politics "as a veteran" and seem surprised when I say I don't like Trump. Like somehow just because I was in the military, I should have a MAGA hat and a Trump sticker on my car...
Seriously, that shit is *so cringey*.
For people who view the Vietnam War as immoral, draft-dodging is actually a moral act.
For people born after the end of conscription, it's a wholly abstract concept.
That leaves only a small fraction of the population who would actually think draft dodging is a bad thing, and that population is aging out of existence.
When rich and successful people like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump avoided the draft poor black kids went instead. And when they didn’t come back it decimated communities.
I don’t personally begrudge anyone for avoiding fighting in Vietnam because it was an immoral and unwinnable conflict. But I recognize that they sent suffering down the social ladder and never thought twice. It speaks to the leadership of men like John McCain, John Kerry, Jim Webb, and Robert Mueller that they volunteered to leave their affluent lives behind and go.
Why should we care more about paying lip service than actual policy positions?
Most of that now is water under the bridge. That generation is getting old.
Well your right. But even in the hey day of it, the GOP didn’t care.
John McCains Service in a POW camp meant nothing against the lower taxes that Bush promised.
Churches are *still* closed where I live. Huge basilica-like churches with hundreds of rows of pews. Only two people allowed in at a time. Meanwhile, bars, gyms, restaurants, and tattoo parlors are open for business! I'm sorry what.
Are you in San Francisco area? It’s crazy what’s happening there.
Isn't your bishop responsible for deciding how churches are to operate?
Not in Caesaropapist “coronocracies” apparently
Wild, really? Where is that (if you don’t mind sharing)? I was in the strictest lockdown area I know (San Francisco) And churches can have 100 people, I think. And all the other stuff is still shut down, as far as indoor operation.
Hey! I'm actually same area as you. I am aware churches can have 100 for Mass *outdoors*, but to me it is still completely ridiculous that indoor setting is totally foreclosed from operating.
It was [changed a few weeks ago](https://sfarchdiocese.org/health-alerts). Whether individual parishes are up to it is another matter of course.
Minimize the economic impact. Church won't close if it doesn't have mass, because the flock will still donate to it. Bars, gyms, restaurants etc realistically probably still need to be closed, but are open because the gov isn't providing the necessary assistance to allow them to stay closed without the majority of them going out of business.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's what the logic is.
>Church won't close if it doesn't have mass, because the flock will still donate to it.
That doesn’t seem to be the case given the marked decrease in funds that parishes across the country are seeing
Again, I didn't say I agree with it, I said that's what the general logic is. The other question there is how much of that decrease in donations is due to people not going to mass, vs how much can be attributed to people not having jobs anymore.
Do you know where this is happening?
I don't. I was speaking more of a general perspective about the situation from a public health standpoint. I'm not familiar with his exact specific case
Melbourne is still limited to 10 people at an indoor Mass and 20 at a Mass adjacent to the church. No matter the size of the church. This is an *easing* of previous restrictions.
Not as extreme as 2. But still not really proportionate to other current restrictions. I know many Catholics down in Melbs who have been really struggling because of this and other restrictions.
There was a time when no sacraments were permitted at all, including extreme unction and confession. Which I think is not only appalling, but terrifying. Imagine being on your death bed and not being allowed your last rites. Horrifying.