We interrupt this program for this important news bulletin
JOSEPH R. BIDEN is the President-Elect of the United States of America.
KAMALA DEVI HARRIS is the Vice-President-Elect of the United States of America.
Thank God.
Comments
-
No sir. The networks are saying that but they are not certified as so. More lies and disinformation. Facts Matter.
-
UPDATE:
According to @reformed, the networks are saying that Joseph R. Biden is the President-Elect of the United States of America, and Kamala Devi Harris is the Vice-President-Elect of the United States of America.
Thank God.
-
Did God have something to do with USA elections?
-
@Bill_Coley it is irresponsible for the networks to declare Biden a winner while there are open challenges and no state has certified that he has won.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Did God have something to do with USA elections?
I believe so, yes, because I believe God has a view - not a partisan political view, but a moral, ethical, and spiritual view - that Donald Trump's pathological lying, the rampant and in-plain-view corruption of his administration, and his narcissistic disregard for the potential destruction of a once-in-a-century global pandemic are all VERY bad things and must be rejected. I believe God moved in this presidential election to inspire the opposition, to make clear the choice, and to move people to do the right thing - NOT the politically right thing, but the moral, ethical, and spiritual right thing. In response, it is now clear that enough people in the right states did the right thing to remove Mr. Trump from office.
Just so I'm clear, Wolfgang, my first objections to Mr. Trump's presidency have ALWAYS been about his character as a person, which directly shaped the character of his presidency. In my life, I have never even imagined that any human being, let alone any politician, could lie as much as Donald Trump has lied. He's lied about little things, big things, anything, and EVERYthing on a daily basis for four years. That trait of his alone should be disqualifying, it's always seemed to me, unless his opponent lied similarly or displayed some other equally reprehensible character flaw, which Mr. Biden has not.
I doubt that I will ever understand how followers of Jesus across this country accepted/tolerated/overlooked/disregarded such profoundly and repetitively sinful conduct. Had Barack Obama lied multiple times every day in his first term as Donald Trump has done in his, I would have condemned Obama's mendacity at every turn and would not have voted for him to be re-elected. For reasons I doubt I will ever understand, people of faith in this country - and perhaps you, yourself, Wolfgang - decided that serial lying is a pardonable sin in a nation's president.
To be clear, I have strongly disagreed with most of Mr. Trump's policy decisions during his term, and his response to the COVID-19 pandemic this year, in my view, has produced tens of thousands of avoidable deaths, which has been a grievous mistake for which I believe history will hold him in contempt. But my first objections have been about character, and character IS something God has to do with.
-
Pathalogical lying? False
Disregard for pandemic? False
Character as a person? Let's talk about the corruptness of Biden.
Biden lies daily. You turn a blind eye to all of his transgressions.
Yes, I doubt I will understand how followers of Christ put up with Biden.
Obama did lie daily in his first term. If you like your doctor.... Or let's not forget Benghazi...
And what would Biden do DIFFERENTLY about Covid? I mean really? The plans he gave during debates were what Trump is ALREADY DOING.
-
If God is truly omniscient and sovereign then nothing can happen neither good nor evil without God knowing before hand that it would happen and without God allowing it happen. Paul says something even stronger than the argument above in Romans 13:1~ 7.
-
@reformed said: Yes, I doubt I will understand how followers of Christ put up with Biden.
As neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden have proven to have lead the life of a devout disciple of Christ I anticipate that 'followers of Christ' in America will put with Mr. Biden in the same way that they put up with Mr. Trump.
-
It is fundamentally different.
-
Biden giving a victory speech when the election is not official or even close to it....irresponsible.
-
I agree anyone who gives a victory speech, makes announcements of victory, or even claims to have won before the election is over is irresponsible individual.
-
@reformed posted:
Biden giving a victory speech when the election is not official or even close to it....irresponsible.
When Donald Trump gave his victory speech on November 9, 2016, before any state had certified its results so as to make his election "official,"...
... did he also behave irresponsibly? If so, did you criticize his action then as you criticize Mr. Biden's now? If you didn't criticize his action then, do you NOW criticize it, given your belief that presidents-elect exist only after states certify their election results?
-
@Mitchell posted:
I agree anyone who gives a victory speech, makes announcements of victory, or even claims to have won before the election is over is irresponsible individual.
It's NEVER happened in my lifetime, and perhaps not since the opening decades of our country's history, that the winner of a presidential election waited until the election was "over" to claim his victory, if by "over" you mean 1) all votes were counted, or 2) all votes were both counted and certified, or 3) electoral college electors had cast their votes (this year, electors will vote on December 14), or 4) certification of electors' votes had reached the president and the archivist of the U.S. Senate (deadline this year is December 23), or 5) when the results of the electoral college were announced to a joint session of Congress (for this election, January 6, 2021). Is it your belief, then, that nearly every presidential election winner has been irresponsible? Or perhaps you have a different definition of when an election is "over"?
SOURCE OF DATES AND OTHER DETAILS:
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
I believe so, yes, because I believe God has a view - not a partisan political view, but a moral, ethical, and spiritual view - that Donald Trump's pathological lying, the rampant and in-plain-view corruption of his administration, and his narcissistic disregard for the potential destruction of a once-in-a-century global pandemic are all VERY bad things and must be rejected.
Hmn .... and Mr. Biden has none of these characteristics, but wonderfully is the opposite ??? WOW ....
-
@Mitchell wrote
If God is truly omniscient and sovereign then nothing can happen neither good nor evil without God knowing before hand that it would happen and without God allowing it happen.
Is this a true statement? Since God made, formed and created Adam, and Adam committed sin, what did God have to do with Adam's decision and actions to do evil and sin? Was God perhaps not sovereign for a moment? Did God actually want Adam to sin, so God could continue with what He really had in mind? Or is there something not quite fitting with your statement?
Paul says something even stronger than the argument above in Romans 13:1~ 7.
Doe Paul even speak about civil government? What is the context in the whole section from Rom 12 - 14? Is that interpretation of "civil government" perhaps as false a translation of the Greek word for "authority" in many modern Bible versions as the example you gave in another thread with the case in Japanese Bible translations for the word for "sin" ? I would suggest to observe the context -- just as I do in any other case -- in order to gain correct understanding of words used, because the same word may be used in entirely different contexts and be referring to totally different matters:
For example, In some contexts, the word "authority" may refer to civil "powers" (even these could be different in different contexts, e.g. police in public place, a judge in a courtroom, a king in a kingdom, a parliament in a different country, etc.). In another case, it may refer to the owner or director of a business or company. In another context perhaps to parents in working with their children, in another perhaps a husband in his relationship with his wife. Within the setting of the Biblical concept of the church, it may refer to neither of the above but to those appointed as bishops, elders, etc.
I suggest to always ddetermine the meaning of a word from the context in which it i used, rather than taking a particular lexical meaning of a word and forcing that meaning on the context. You know, a "wheel" has rubber around it and is found on cars, thus that thing with two wheels and fancy spokes which I power with my legs and feet must be a car and I am actually not a person but a 1 cylinder car engine 😉
-
Mr. Biden in hiss speech sort of announced that he will be more friendly with China ....interesting. Perhaps there is already another high authority position in a company slated for the "Hunter" as there was in 2014 in Ukraine?? 😎
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
I believe so, yes, because I believe God has a view - not a partisan political view, but a moral, ethical, and spiritual view - that Donald Trump's pathological lying, the rampant and in-plain-view corruption of his administration, and his narcissistic disregard for the potential destruction of a once-in-a-century global pandemic are all VERY bad things and must be rejected.
what is more dangerous: the black sheep or the wolve in white sheep clothing?
-
Even a math genius knows the type of differences in the vote count within the time frame from midnight to early morning is impossible.
Perhaps God miraculously intervened and produced the ballots which supposedly made the difference in order to get a corrupt old man obviously (as is visible from some of his recent campaign speeches !!) suffering from dementia into the White House ???? 😉 😯 I would hope that Christians participating in this forum would not hold to such an idea ....
-
Perhaps you missed the words "or even close to it." 2016 was not a close election.
-
@reformed posted:
Perhaps you missed the words "or even close to it." 2016 was not a close election.
No, I didn't miss any of the words of your previous post. I quote all of them here:
"Biden giving a victory speech when the election is not official or even close to it....irresponsible."
You claimed that it was "irresponsible" for Biden to give a victory speech when the election is not "official or even close to it." What does the pronoun "it" refer to in your claim? Obviously, the election's being "official." So, your claim is that it was "irresponsible" for Biden to give a victory speech when the election is not "official or even close to [official]." What do you mean by "official"? You've told us in your previous posts:
- HERE you contended that though "the networks" were "saying" Biden and Harris were president-elect and vice-president-elect, Biden/Harris had not yet been "certified as so."
- And then HERE you claimed that it was "irresponsible" for the networks to declare Biden the winner "while there are open challenges and no state has certified that he has won."
In your view as expressed in your own posts, then, when is an election result "official"? When states have "certified" which candidate won the most votes, and there are no "open challenges" to the result.
Now that we know how you define "official," I ask my question again: When Donald Trump gave his victory speech on November 9, 2016, before any state had certified its results so as to make his election "official," did he also behave irresponsibly? If so, did you criticize his action then as you criticize Mr. Biden's now? If you didn't criticize his action then, do you NOW criticize it, given your belief that presidents-elect exist only after states certify their election results? [NOTE: Your posts gave NO indication that elections were "official" if states had "certified" results OR there were no "open challenges" to the results. Your posts gave every indication that elections were "official" only if BOTH conditions were met.]
-
Actually I told you what I meant Bill so your last post is pointless. The election is close. It is not close to being a clear winner despite what a delusional Joe Biden says. It's not clear. It is contested. It is in a legal battle. He has not won anything. We do not know who won this election yet.
-
@reformed posted:
Actually I told you what I meant Bill so your last post is pointless. The election is close. It is not close to being a clear winner despite what a delusional Joe Biden says. It's not clear. It is contested. It is in a legal battle. He has not won anything. We do not know who won this election yet.
But this is NOT what you posted previously. Prior to our most recent exchange, as I demonstrated from your posts, you asserted that Mr. Biden had been "irresponsible," NOT ONLY because the matter was in court, or the election was "close," or there was nothing "close to a clear winner," or that the election is "contested," but ALSO BECAUSE "no state has certified that he has won." Those were YOUR words, not mine. YOU said one of the reasons Biden had been irresponsible in giving a victory speech was that "no state has certified that he has won."
You are OF COURSE welcome to rescind your argument, if you wish; but for goodness' sake, acknowledge that that's what you're doing. You DID claim that Biden was wrong to give a victory speech because no state has certified its results. Or if you now want to claim that when you said state certification of results was necessary before a victory speech you didn't MEAN state certification was necessary before a victory speech, fine; just say so.
Otherwise, answer my question, which I pose to you a third time: When Donald Trump gave his victory speech on November 9, 2016, before any state had certified its results so as to make his election "official," did he also behave irresponsibly? If so, did you criticize his action then as you criticize Mr. Biden's now? If you didn't criticize his action then, do you NOW criticize it, given your belief that presidents-elect exist only after states certify their election results?
EDIT: Because you have a long-established practice of refusing to answer my questions, I'm confident that you won't answer the question I just re-posed to you, SO I ask this one instead: When in a previous post you claimed that one of the reasons Biden had been irresponsible in giving a victory speech was that "no state has certified that he won," what did you mean? In your earlier post in this thread, what did the words "no state has certified that he has won" mean?
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
Otherwise, answer my question, which I pose to you a third time: When Donald Trump gave his victory speech on November 9, 2016, before any state had certified its results so as to make his election "official," did he also behave irresponsibly?
perhaps there was a difference between then and now in that the whole vote counting matter was more or less undisputed and H. Clinton had already been seen in scenes admitting her loss ???? Certainly, in 2016 there were no such "strange" vote counting issues reported which seem mathematically and statistically impossible ???
-
Again, I CLARIFIED my statement to you. When Donald Trump gave his speech in 2016 he truly was the clear winner.
-
@Bill_Coley you can twist things all you want, but I already explained my intent that you misinterpreted. There is no conflict on my 2016 position and my 2020 position you liberal hack.
-
@reformed posted:
Again, I CLARIFIED my statement to you. When Donald Trump gave his speech in 2016 he truly was the clear winner.
State certification of election results has a precise and specific meaning in our system that has NOTHING to do with whether there is a "clear winner" in the overall general election. It has to do ONLY with a state's formal, official verification of the final vote counts in THAT PARTICULAR STATE, verification that's usually offered several days if not weeks after election day, only after all votes cast are counted. So when you wrote that Biden had been irresponsible to present a victory speech because "no state has certified that he has won," did you MEAN what you wrote or not? (that truly is a Yes/No question; either you meant that Biden was irresponsible to speak before the states certified their election results, or you didn't)
@Bill_Coley you can twist things all you want, but I already explained my intent that you misinterpreted.
I think I'm quoting your words, not twisting them.
As for your intent, that's what I'm asking about. Did you mean what you wrote when TWICE you referred to the lack of state certification of votes as a reason Biden was irresponsible to offer a victory speech? It SEEMS that you didn't mean what you wrote, and are now trying to cover your tracks by blaming me for misinterpreting. All I ask is that you tell us directly whether you meant what you wrote when you wrote that Joe Biden had been irresponsible in holding his victory speech because "no state has certified that he has won." It's either yes or no. If you didn't mean what you wrote, this exchange will end. If you did mean what you wrote, then I will ask my question about Mr Trump's 2016 speech a fourth time.
There is no conflict on my 2016 position and my 2020 position
If you didn't mean what you wrote about state certification of vote results, then I agree - there is no conflict between the two positions. If you DID mean what you wrote, however, there clearly IS a conflict. Please tell us DIRECTLY whether you meant what you wrote.
you liberal hack.
I can certify that there is no change in your position on this issue, and no change in your willingness to engage in juvenile name-calling.
-
@Bill_Coley once I explain my comments to be contrary to what you thought, if you continue to peddle what you thought you are twisting them. Typical liberal dishonesty.
-
I told you either a certification of victory or a clear and decisive win which Biden has neither. Trump had the clear and decisive win in 2016.
-
I did mean what I wrote but you only take the first part of the sentence and don't accept my explanation of the second part.
-
@reformed posted:
@Bill_Coley once I explain my comments to be contrary to what you thought, if you continue to peddle what you thought you are twisting them. Typical liberal dishonesty.
This is getting absurd.
In your first three posts about the Biden victory speech - THIS POST, THIS POST, and THIS POST - you cited four criteria needed before in your view a candidate may responsibly make a victory speech. THREE of those four criteria were official or state certification of election results. Once I asked you to explain how those criteria applied to Donald Trump's 2016 victory speech, magically, the need for official/certified results basically vanished, replaced by the subjective terms "close election" and "clear winner."
Biden's victory needs to be "certified" and "official" before he can give a victory speech you said... before I asked you about Trump's 2016 speech, after which you replaced objective certification with subjective assessment. No wonder you haven't been willing to give me a straight answer to any of my questions.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
