Blatantly Illegal

[ScottW]

https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1449511271062196224

"Vote after today's service"

You can't pimp this political shit in a church. It's blatantly illegal and those 4 words shows crooked Camela knows exactly where this video is going to be played.

She should be impeached....immediately.

But hey...in 2022 we can no impeach Joe for his Hunter $$ and add Camela for this BS.

Welcome president McCarthy.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 10/17/21 11:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
> https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1449511271062196224
>
> "Vote after today's service"
>
> You can't pimp this political shit in a church. It's blatantly
> illegal and those 4 words shows crooked Camela knows exactly where
> this video is going to be played.

Asking people to vote is a time-honored way to avoid the ban on politics
in church which requires a specific endorsement of a candidate.

There have several relatively recent challenges to the ban, with pastors
all but daring the government to act against them.

[ScottW]

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 12:07:34 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/17/21 11:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
> > https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1449511271062196224
> >
> > "Vote after today's service"
> >
> > You can't pimp this political shit in a church. It's blatantly
> > illegal and those 4 words shows crooked Camela knows exactly where
> > this video is going to be played.
> Asking people to vote is a time-honored way to avoid the ban on politics
> in church which requires a specific endorsement of a candidate.

Watch it....she talks up Terry by name the whole time and then tells 'em to go vote
after service.

>
> There have several relatively recent challenges to the ban, with pastors
> all but daring the government to act against them.

She ain't the pastor and church isn't the place for a campaign ad/endorsement.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 10/17/21 7:59 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 12:07:34 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 11:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>> https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1449511271062196224
>>>
>>> "Vote after today's service"
>>>
>>> You can't pimp this political shit in a church. It's blatantly
>>> illegal and those 4 words shows crooked Camela knows exactly
>>> where this video is going to be played.
>> Asking people to vote is a time-honored way to avoid the ban on
>> politics in church which requires a specific endorsement of a
>> candidate.
>
> Watch it....she talks up Terry by name the whole time and then tells
> 'em to go vote after service.

But she didn't tell them to vote for him.

>> There have several relatively recent challenges to the ban, with
>> pastors all but daring the government to act against them.
>
> She ain't the pastor and church isn't the place for a campaign
> ad/endorsement.

Yes, that's why she didn't endorse anyone specific.

I'm curious why you make the distinction about pastors. Is okay for them
to talk up a candidate or a position then tell the flock to go vote?
What if they make a point of defying the government: "They say I can't
tell you what I believe, but I stand for my beliefs," etc?

[Art Sackman]

> Yes, that's why she didn't endorse anyone specific.

She MOST CERTAINLY DID

Go back and watch her video that played at churches.
You are either a liar, and idiot, deaf, or inattentive,
She extolled her listeners to join the McCauliff campaign and in the next sentence told
them to go out and vote.

>

[ScottW]

Stephen has only one moral code.
A dem can do no wrong.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

That "and" makes an important distinction. Good thing no conservative
politicians visit churches, though.

[ScottW]

What a load of crap..
It's Clintonesque on what is is.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:54:55 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/18/21 10:27 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, that's why she didn't endorse anyone specific.
> >
> > She MOST CERTAINLY DID
> >
> > Go back and watch her video that played at churches. You are either a
> > liar, and idiot, deaf, or inattentive, She extolled her listeners to
> > join the McCauliff campaign and in the next sentence told them to go
> > out and vote.
> That "and" makes an important distinction.

She told churchgoers to join the McCauliff campaign. Evidently you do not consider that to be politcking,
You're a certified idiot.

[MiNe109]

It works for Republicans and megachurches, too.

[MiNe109]

Another misreading: I haven't expressed an opinion on politicking, only
on whether she endorsed a candidate based on the quotes here on RAO.

[ScottW]

and when indefensibly busted....he goes to his classic whataboutism.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

I mean, when she said to go work on the McCauliff campaign, really, that's an endorsement!!!!!
You are a certified idiot, and still practicing your art

[MiNe109]

I may be an idiot, but I know that an endorsement requires a statement
asking someone to vote for a specific candidate. A general encouragement
to go vote doesn't count for IRS purposes.

[MiNe109]

It's a valid response, especially when you two reject the legal
distinction that no candidate was endorsed.

https://americanfaith.com/california-megachurch-pastor-calls-on-congregants-to-recall-immoral-gov-gavin-newsom/

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95174951

"On Sunday, more than 30 pastors across the country are expected to
preach a sermon that endorses or opposes a political candidate by name.
This would be a flagrant violation of a law that bans tax-exempt
organizations from involvement in political campaigns."

They're gonna endorse John McCain, so somewhat dated.

[ScottW]

I don't condone any of that....and it appear to be an act of civil disobedience in opposition to IRS
restrictions vs first amendment rather than a McCain endorsement so there is a bit of a difference.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

There is no maybe about it you are an idiot. A Certified Idiot
you are stuck on endorsement.
Prohibited activities are far wider than that

it includes:
1-active in campaign, this would include pursuading others to become active in a campaign Harris is guilty
2- Distribute campaign literature this would include distributing her video, which
encouraged participation in a campaign, Harris is Guilty
3- campaign for or against candidates. I refer you to her video. Harris is guilty
4- Make campaign speeches. Again, she does that in the video
Harris is guilty

in the video Harris says
QUOTE
"you can also joins Terry's campaign"
and then gives the phone number for his campaign

Can you not comprehend that?
Are you that STUPID?

[MiNe109]

On 10/19/21 2:38 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:42:34 AM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:

>> I may be an idiot, but I know that an endorsement requires a
>> statement asking someone to vote for a specific candidate. A
>> general encouragement to go vote doesn't count for IRS purposes.
>
> There is no maybe about it you are an idiot. A Certified Idiot you
> are stuck on endorsement.

Cuz she didn't.

> Prohibited activities are far wider than that it includes:

> 1-active in campaign, this would include pursuading
> others to become active in a campaign Harris is guilty

2- Distribute campaign literature this would include distributing her
video, which
> encouraged participation in a campaign, Harris is Guilty

>3- campaign for or against candidates. I refer you to her video. Harris is
> guilty

>4- Make campaign speeches. Again, she does that in the video
> Harris is guilty
>
> in the video Harris says QUOTE "you can also joins Terry's campaign"
> and then gives the phone number for his campaign

Thanks for the list. Where does it come from?

> Can you not comprehend that? Are you that STUPID?

Your beef is with the churches.

[Art Sackman]

My beef is with YOU
She made the video and distributed it to the churches
Distribution of such material is a violation
So says Wiki

[MiNe109]

The violation alleged is of churches with non-profit status engaging in
campaign activity forbidden under the Johnson Amendment of 1954. The
culpability lies with the churches.

BTW, conservatives are against the Johnson Amendment and Trump promised
to "totally destroy" it.

https://churchleaders.com/news/298765-trump-promises-totally-destroy-johnson-amendment-national-prayer-breakfast-speech.html

“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson amendment and allow
our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of
retribution. I will do that.”

[ScottW]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:39:28 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/20/21 3:20 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:04:39 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 10/19/21 2:38 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>
> >>> Can you not comprehend that? Are you that STUPID?
> >> Your beef is with the churches.
> >
> > My beef is with YOU
> > She made the video and distributed it to the churches
> > Distribution of such material is a violation
> > So says Wiki
> The violation alleged is of churches with non-profit status engaging in
> campaign activity forbidden under the Johnson Amendment of 1954. The
> culpability lies with the churches.

It's a conspiracy.....an insurrection....

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/20/21 3:20 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:04:39 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 10/19/21 2:38 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>
> >>> Can you not comprehend that? Are you that STUPID?
> >> Your beef is with the churches.
> >
> > My beef is with YOU
> > She made the video and distributed it to the churches
> > Distribution of such material is a violation
> > So says Wiki
> The violation alleged is of churches with non-profit status engaging in
> campaign activity forbidden under the Johnson Amendment of 1954. The
> culpability lies with the churches.
>

No Harris is alleged to violate the Act
ANd the churches are not, at this time, alleged, as it is reported that none have
played the video at church

Harris' violation is for preparing and disseminating the political material, witout tregars
as to whether or not it has been used by others.

[MiNe109]

On 10/20/21 1:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 10/20/21 3:20 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:04:39 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/21 2:38 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>
>>>>> Can you not comprehend that? Are you that STUPID?
>>>> Your beef is with the churches.
>>>
>>> My beef is with YOU She made the video and distributed it to the
>>> churches Distribution of such material is a violation So says
>>> Wiki
>> The violation alleged is of churches with non-profit status
>> engaging in campaign activity forbidden under the Johnson Amendment
>> of 1954. The culpability lies with the churches.
>>
>
> No Harris is alleged to violate the Act ANd the churches are not,
> at this time, alleged, as it is reported that none have played the
> video at church

Well, then, what's the fuss about?

Of course, the Amendment doesn't apply to candidates or campaign. The
penalties, rarely enforced, are for the non-profit organizations.

> Harris' violation is for preparing and disseminating the political
> material, witout tregars as to whether or not it has been used by
> others.

She made a video praising a candidate from her own party? This has
really deflated. Or are you trying to switch to the Hatch Act? Also
laughably lax in enforcement but at least it would apply to a VP, unless
she was acting outside of her office to express her personal views, that is.

[Art Sackman]

> She made a video praising a candidate from her own party? This has
> really deflated. Or are you trying to switch to the Hatch Act? Also
> laughably lax in enforcement but at least it would apply to a VP, unless
> she was acting outside of her office to express her personal views, that is.

You left out half the story.
She sent it to about 300 churches

[ScottW]

He's just bummed....he didn't get one at his Sunday gig.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

I'm not telling the story. So she made a video that might violate tax
law were it shown and no one showed it? Sounds like a win for law and order.

A bell is a cup until it is struck.

[Art Sackman]

She distributed it.
She produced it
it was her plan and she acted on it
It doesn't natter that it hasn't been shown yet
AS an example of defeating your argument A Conspiracy charge is still valid even if the conspiracy hasn't been acted out yet

[ScottW]

She's an insurrectionist! In DC you can get 200 days in solitary with no trial.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 10/21/21 7:33 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:14:32 AM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 10/20/21 8:37 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>>
>>>> She made a video praising a candidate from her own party? This
>>>> has really deflated. Or are you trying to switch to the Hatch
>>>> Act? Also laughably lax in enforcement but at least it would
>>>> apply to a VP, unless she was acting outside of her office to
>>>> express her personal views, that is.
>>>
>>> You left out half the story. She sent it to about 300 churches
>> I'm not telling the story. So she made a video that might violate
>> tax law were it shown and no one showed it? Sounds like a win for
>> law and order.
>>
>> A bell is a cup until it is struck.
>
> She distributed it.

Legally.

> She produced it

Legally.

> it was her plan and she acted on it

Legally.

> It doesn't natter that it hasn't been shown yet

It's not illegal to get a video and not show it.

> AS an example of defeating your argument A Conspiracy charge is
> still valid even if the conspiracy hasn't been acted out yet

That's true for insurrections. Not so certain for rarely-enforced tax law.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1303862579701472

The relevant remarks begin at 46 minutes.

The executive order:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170506055021/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/04/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty/

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive
departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent
practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the
freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and
political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the
Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house
of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such
individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political
issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character
has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation
or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition
to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As
used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of
any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the
disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities
exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United
States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any
tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

[ScottW]

Do you even read the shit you post?
Thanks for proving that had her video been shown, they would be in violation
and at risk for "adverse action".

If Trump did this as president...you'd be screaming bloody murder.

ScottW

[ScottW]

This piece says it is being shown...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harris-legal-mcauliffe-endorsement-virginia-churches

and questions to Harris were referred to the Terry campaign.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

Your uncertainty is comforting.
But you are ok with her producing campaign material that would be illegal
if it were show publicly.
There was no reason for her to produce the video if it weren't
going to be shown. And to use public funds instead of campaign funds to do it.
The use of public funds alone still makes it a violation.

[MiNe109]

On 10/23/21 4:20 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:45:22 AM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 10/21/21 7:33 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

>>> A Conspiracy charge is still valid even if the conspiracy hasn't
>>> been acted out yet
>> That's true for insurrections. Not so certain for rarely-enforced
>> tax law.
>>
>
> Your uncertainty is comforting.

I have the experience of seeing the law not being enforced against
churches who support conservative candidates.

> But you are ok with her producing campaign material that would be
> illegal if it were show publicly.

No, if shown in church services.

> There was no reason for her to produce the video if it weren't going
> to be shown. And to use public funds instead of campaign funds to do
> it. The use of public funds alone still makes it a violation.

Hadn't heard about public funds, but that's a separate question.

[MiNe109]

What a way to describe a Trump executive order!

> Thanks for proving that had her video been shown, they would be in violation
> and at risk for "adverse action".

"They" being the individual churches as I said previously.

> If Trump did this as president...you'd be screaming bloody murder.

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/mikaela-matthews/franklin-graham-calls-for-day-of-prayer-for-president-trump-on-june-2.html

Yes, there were objections but not the "screaming bloody murder" you
imagine. Many were content to mock Trump wearing golf shoes in church.

[Art Sackman]

>
> Yes, there were objections but not the "screaming bloody murder" you
> imagine. Many were content to mock Trump wearing golf shoes in church.

What are you babbling about?
Leftists mocking Trump by wearing golf shoes to church?
You mean, leftists are actually going to church?
That's a good thing! Maybe they will learn that killing babies is wrong.

[MiNe109]

On 10/23/21 11:50 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

>> Yes, there were objections but not the "screaming bloody murder" you
>> imagine. Many were content to mock Trump wearing golf shoes in church.
>
> What are you babbling about?
> Leftists mocking Trump by wearing golf shoes to church?

That's one way to read it. Try another way.

[Art Sackman]

Mean what you say and sat what you mean.
your language has too many sharps and flats.

[MiNe109]

"Many were content to mock Trump's wearing golf shoes in church." Not
much of a stretch to fill that in for yourself. Of course, who doesn't
enjoy a good "eats shoots and leaves" perplexity?

Reminds me of this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2?op=1

"People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it
serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change,
disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality
among groups and individuals," the researchers said.

End quote.

Gotta avoid that uncertainty and ambiguity, right?

[Art Sackman]

Yale psychologists did the study

Yale professors:
75% liberal
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9769
7% conservative
https://www.thecollegefix.com/7-percent-yale-professors-identify-conservative-survey-finds/

and more cites

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/14/yale-faculty-skews-liberal-survey-shows/

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/10/06/survey-only-seven-percent-of-yale-professors-are-conservative/

Further arguments with you on this thread are like beating a dead horse Out of pity towards your deceased remains, I'm outta here

[ScottW]

Stop insulting dead horses.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 10/25/21 12:15 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:

>> Reminds me of this:
>>
>> https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2?op=1

>>"People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it
>> serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change,
>> disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify
>> inequality among groups and individuals," the researchers said.
>>
>> End quote.
>>
>
>
> Yale psychologists did the study

Nope, University of Virginia.

<snip political surveys of profs who didn't do the study>

> Further arguments with you on this thread are like beating a dead
> horse Out of pity towards your deceased remains, I'm outta here

Bye! Science wins!

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/conservatives-science/

Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro is fond of saying, "facts don't care
about your feelings," a quip that implies that empirical data is more
important than anecdotal evidence. Yet a recent psychological study
suggests that conservatives, not liberals, are far more apt to let their
feelings to get in the way of accepting facts.

In a paper published in the journal Political Psychology in October,
researchers from Cal Poly Pomona and Eureka College describe a pair of
studies that they conducted to determine if there is a connection
between a person's political ideology and their willingness to accept
scientific and non-scientific views on non-political subjects. Their
goal was to assess how people feel not just toward scientists but also
"nonexpert" voices. They allowed the surveyed individuals to either rate
one higher than the other, or argue that "both sides" were equal.

The researchers then conducted a pair of studies in 2018 in which
participants, after being screened based on their political philosophy,
"read a supposed article excerpt where a researcher was quoted as
debunking a popular misconception. An alternative viewpoint followed,
rejecting the researcher's viewpoint."

The authors of the paper found that, although conservatives and liberals
both reported more favorable views of the science researcher than the
rejecter, conservatives were more likely to think both sides were closer
in legitimacy. They also found that in general conservatives held a less
favorable view of the expert than liberals and a more favorable view of
the rejecter than liberals.

[ScottW]

Study just proves what I've long known.
Conservatives are willing to think for themselves.
Libs are more willing to think what they're told.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZ_5B5mJS0

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 8:47:42 AM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/25/21 12:15 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
>
> >> Reminds me of this:
> >>
> >> https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2?op=1
>
> >>"People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it
> >> serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change,
> >> disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify
> >> inequality among groups and individuals," the researchers said.
> >>
> >> End quote.
> >>
> >
> >

> > Yale psychologists did the study
> Nope, University of Virginia.
>

I have to jump back in to tell you what a worthless lying pile
of shit scumbag you are, because the article that you cited refers to a Yale study

"Groundbreaking research that Yale psychologists published in 2017 revealed that helping people imagine they're completely safe from harm can make them (temporarily) hold more liberal views on social issues."

[MiNe109]

You really should take a breath and look again before insulting me and
accusing me of lying.

What you have done is look at the beginning of the article to see Yale
mentioned but not continue to see it lists several studies from
different sources.

The paragraph that precedes the quote above contains links that lead to
the University of Virginia although they no longer are operative:

"A 2003 review of decades of research on conservative people suggested
that their social views can help satisfy "psychological needs" to make
sense of the world and manage uncertainty and fear."

I apologize for jumping to the conclusion UV hosted this metastudy.
However, you will see that none of the authors are from Yale nor does
the work have any emphasis on Yale studies. You could look up Arie
Kruglanski from the University of Maryland, College Park for more
information.

Here's the complete article. The quote ("People embrace" etc) is in the
Overview.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12784934/

Some follow-up:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/differences-in-negativity-bias-underlie-variations-in-political-ideology/72A29464D2FD037B03F7485616929560

The hypothesis here is that conservatives are quicker to be disgusted.

[MiNe109]

On 10/25/21 12:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:47:42 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:

>> https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/conservatives-science/

> Study just proves what I've long known.
> Conservatives are willing to think for themselves.

Pat yourself on the back.

> Libs are more willing to think what they're told.

Especially when what they're told is from science or the law.

[Art Sackman]

Some fanatics converse with God, other fanatics converse with science.
The sexually fluid science entity is some imaginary entity somewhere in the universe
Xir science is probably sipping a latte in an Ivy League faculty lounge.
Heaven is Devine!

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

> > Conservatives are willing to think for themselves.
>
> Pat yourself on the back.

Witless has previously admitted that he believes "conservatives" are a
religious cult. I.e., the initiation rituals are arcane, the dogma is
elusive to the point of being ineffable, and mere Rationals are ineligible
for membership unless they can prove the ability to disconnect all of their
faculties of logic and reason.

[ScottW]

Can we play Fauci....singing I am the God of Science again?

ScottW

[MiNe109]

The up side to their conformity is conservatives tend to be happier
bereft of all that ambiguity.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

> > Witless has previously admitted that he believes "conservatives" are a
> > religious cult. I.e., the initiation rituals are arcane, the dogma is
> > elusive to the point of being ineffable, and mere Rationals are ineligible
> > for membership unless they can prove the ability to disconnect all of their
> > faculties of logic and reason.
>
> The up side to their conformity is conservatives tend to be happier
> bereft of all that ambiguity.

That helps to explain "prayer breakfasts".