Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Trollminator wrote:

Biff, sally and Igy... read and fkn weep you orange face losers. If you don’t like democracy and laws you can leave anytime.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trump.pdf

We worship democracy and laws. It is you Libs who want Antifa and BLM and other radical leftist groups (perhaps redundant) parading the streets rioting and tearing down businesses and wanting to abolish police departments. And it is you Libs who always promise to leave the country if so-and-so wins the election but you never do. You are clowns.

Weak boring Sally troll.

Try harder.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Biff, sally and Igy... read and fkn weep you orange face losers. If you don’t like democracy and laws you can leave anytime.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trump.pdf

We worship democracy and laws. It is you Libs who want Antifa and BLM and other radical leftist groups (perhaps redundant) parading the streets rioting and tearing down businesses and wanting to abolish police departments. And it is you Libs who always promise to leave the country if so-and-so wins the election but you never do. You are clowns.

The libs love fraud when it benefits their candidate.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

We worship democracy and laws. It is you Libs who want Antifa and BLM and other radical leftist groups (perhaps redundant) parading the streets rioting and tearing down businesses and wanting to abolish police departments. And it is you Libs who always promise to leave the country if so-and-so wins the election but you never do. You are clowns.

The libs love fraud when it benefits their candidate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crossroads_josh/status/1332337990539096064

I respect you even less that you came back with this nonsense, and I did not think that was possible. Seriously, go see a doctor.

Monkeys typing wrote:

As I understand it, the decisive issue is that NY had explicit rules for church gatherings. Had they, for instance, prohibited gatherings of more than 10 people outside of a household across the board, a religious discrimination legal argument would be hard to make.

The flip side is the state's intent was to provide clear guidance on various activities relating to public health which is a good thing. I don't believe there was any clear religious discrimination intent and the Supreme Court decision comes at a cost to public health. The problem is that religious liberty is an explicitly protected constitutional right and public health concerns aren't.

What you say is true. However that’s not the point that the original poster was saying. They made a general statement about how democrats wanted to limit religious freedom. While they may have had different rules for places of worship than a restaurant it’s only affecting their ability to congregate not their right to practice their faith.

Monkeys typing wrote:

As I understand it, the decisive issue is that NY had explicit rules for church gatherings. Had they, for instance, prohibited gatherings of more than 10 people outside of a household across the board, a religious discrimination legal argument would be hard to make.

The flip side is the state's intent was to provide clear guidance on various activities relating to public health which is a good thing. I don't believe there was any clear religious discrimination intent and the Supreme Court decision comes at a cost to public health. The problem is that religious liberty is an explicitly protected constitutional right and public health concerns aren't.

Religious services pose greater risks than places like bike shops or grocery stores because large groups are together for a considerable period of time and they speak and sing in close proximity. But they are treated far more favorably than movie theaters, concert venues, and sporting arenas which are subject to complete shutdown.

Since I am not religious, I don't understand why physically meeting is so essential to one's faith. It's not like they would be relegated to Zoom meetings for the rest of their lives.

It reminds me of people on this board who insist that running on a treadmill is not running, and they would rather run in six inches snow or 100 degree heat. The only difference is that running in six inches snow or 100 degrees heat only endangers one's health. Holding superspreader events endangers other people's lives. If someone would rather die than having a virtual religious service through Zoom, that's their prerogative. But I wouldn't want to be killed by their decision.

Yep, but sure enough the court has cover not to properly deliberate on the substance of the underlying issue of religious freedom. COVID has been a mess to deal with and of course there have been inconsistent guidelines in every state. It’s easy to just point the finger somewhere and say there is nothing to think about here, there is no good argument. And like I said, in our country we are all about the individual, even if it puts others in danger.

Don the Con.. wrote:

I gotta go with 1101 on this. But I will say using numbers was a badly written law. 100 people is a small church is packed, but in a huge church is less of a concern.

That's a very good observation. I haven't read the opinion or the statute, but it could be that the statute is too blunt of an instrument. It may be that as written, it doesn't strike the right balance between religious liberty and public safety. That could be a valid reason for striking it down.

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/gartmartin9/status/1332413628235075592?s=21

Btw as an online poster put it, this assassination was not meant to change Iran’s behavior (killing the general didn’t accomplish it either), it’s about sabotaging future diplomacy with Iran.

Trollminator wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/gartmartin9/status/1332413628235075592?s=21

Btw as an online poster put it, this assassination was not meant to change Iran’s behavior (killing the general didn’t accomplish it either), it’s about sabotaging future diplomacy with Iran.

Exactly...the timing of this assassination is too coincidental. Trump is making it as difficult as possible for Biden to renew the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Since I am not religious, I don't understand why physically meeting is so essential to one's faith. It's not like they would be relegated to Zoom meetings for the rest of their lives.

It is all about filling up the collection plate. You are more likely to contribute to church coffers by peer pressure from other worshippers – they can see that you are contributing – than you are to contribute watching on zoom – the same peer pressure isn't there.

One problem with mass religious gatherings is that infected people will go to service because they "have to," regardless of being contagious. Churches have the problem of limited ways to get in and out … getting people out in time for the next group of donor worshippers means ignoring the six-foot separation rule. And, when leaving en masse people are immediately passing into the exhausted breath streams of people around them.

Another problem with the religious SCOTUS decision is that the opened the door to any group to claim itself a religion (they just have to set the paperwork up) and people who are no religious will start having SCOTUS "protected" mass gatherings. Even a strip joint could qualify as long as their hire someone to preach "something" while the strippers shed their clothes. And the later has already happened.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

As I understand it, the decisive issue is that NY had explicit rules for church gatherings. Had they, for instance, prohibited gatherings of more than 10 people outside of a household across the board, a religious discrimination legal argument would be hard to make.

The flip side is the state's intent was to provide clear guidance on various activities relating to public health which is a good thing. I don't believe there was any clear religious discrimination intent and the Supreme Court decision comes at a cost to public health. The problem is that religious liberty is an explicitly protected constitutional right and public health concerns aren't.

Since I am not religious, I don't understand why physically meeting is so essential to one's faith. It's not like they would be relegated to Zoom meetings for the rest of their lives.

The Bible says we are supposed to gather in person. And the Bible overrules your liberal laws that try to destroy freedom. Our country is based on Judeo-Christian, and everything is required to be viewed through that lens.

Flybang mash wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Since I am not religious, I don't understand why physically meeting is so essential to one's faith. It's not like they would be relegated to Zoom meetings for the rest of their lives.

The Bible says we are supposed to gather in person. And the Bible overrules your liberal laws that try to destroy freedom. Our country is based on Judeo-Christian, and everything is required to be viewed through that lens.

the bible was written before zoom meetings were a thing. HEck, even dumbo uses twitter (and don't we know it).

Flybang mash wrote:

The Bible says we are supposed to gather in person. And the Bible overrules your liberal laws that try to destroy freedom. Our country is based on Judeo-Christian, and everything is required to be viewed through that lens.

Your lens is fogged up. The Bible makes no mention of mass gatherings to worship. Two or three are all that is necessary per Matthew.

Matthew 18:20 – For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

yes yes yes yes wrote:

Flybang mash wrote:

The Bible says we are supposed to gather in person. And the Bible overrules your liberal laws that try to destroy freedom. Our country is based on Judeo-Christian, and everything is required to be viewed through that lens.

the bible was written before zoom meetings were a thing. HEck, even dumbo uses twitter (and don't we know it).

Doesn't matter. The Bible is the supreme law. It's not limited temporally to technologies existing at the time of publishing. God knew about Zoom when He divinely inspired the Bible, even if you didn't.

yes yes yes yes wrote:

the bible was written before zoom meetings were a thing. HEck, even dumbo uses twitter (and don't we know it).

Zoom would qualify as a gathering. Gathering in person is anywhere in the Bible.

Mass church gathers are nothing more than filling up of church coffers.

Here's a little disconnect between what the Trump camp says is going on, and what is really going on. Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted this about evidence of fraud being covered up, in response to today's federal appeals court decision in PA:

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1332380180065738754

Meanwhile, as the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out, the Trump campaign not only didn't present any evidence of fraud, they weren't even claiming that there was any fraud. From page 2 of the court's decision:

The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair.

But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is

not a fraud case.”

Flybang mash wrote:

Doesn't matter. The Bible is the supreme law.

Nope. There is the Koran and Torah which both feature the same set of characters as the Bible. Then there are Hindu and Buddhist texts which cover a supreme entity (everything on Earth and in the Cosmos, not just people on Earth) just like the Bible, Koran and Torah.

By the way: The Bible is not a law book. Think of it as similar to rules when you run a track race.