US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[The United Territories of Providence]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

This Black Church endorsed Donald Trump

I'm pretty sure both of these are against the law. But are they? I have mixed feelings about churches being tax exempt, but I don't know that they shouldn't be able to endorse a candidate if they want to. Religion is inherently political.

[Gauthier]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

Ironic given that the Republican platform calls for abolishing the Johnson Amendment, which would let the pastors do exactly that.

[Neutraligon]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

This Black Church endorsed Donald Trump

I'm pretty sure both of these are against the law. But are they? I have mixed feelings about churches being tax exempt, but I don't know that they shouldn't be able to endorse a candidate if they want to. Religion is inherently political.

If they wish to be involved in politics by directly endorsing a candidate they cannot be tax-exempt; to do otherwise would be to violate the first amendment.

[USS Monitor]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

I guess someone ought to look into that

as soon as they start looking into the white megachurches politicking for republicans.

.....

or catholic churches. my niece and her husband changed churches because their old one started spending too much time talking politics during sermons.

Yeah, they should take away the Republican churches tax-exempt status too. In fact, they should have done it years ago. Those churches are responsible for a lot of hatred and bad government.

[Ifreann]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

It should cost them their tax exempt status.

This.

It's certainly amusing, though, that something Trump wants to legalise is being done to support Clinton.

---

I would be more outraged if I didn't know this shit goes on all the time with evangelical churches, at least in my area.

It should cost them their tax-exempt status, but I've my doubts of any real enforcement.

The IRS seems unwilling to enforce the rules. According to The Atlantic, it's focused more on "education". Don't really know what that means.

"Did you know that what you're doing is illegal and could lead to your tax exempt status being removed? It's true! Please stop doing it, because we can't afford to take you to court to make you stop."

[Eol Sha]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

This Black Church endorsed Donald Trump

I'm pretty sure both of these are against the law. But are they? I have mixed feelings about churches being tax exempt, but I don't know that they shouldn't be able to endorse a candidate if they want to. Religion is inherently political.

According to The Atlantic "it is illegal for clergy to support or oppose political candidates from the pulpit. Houses of worship can host candidate forums and voter-registration drives; pastors and rabbis and imams can even bend the rules a little to advocate “as individuals” at conventions or other events. But for more than 60 years, religious groups have been forbidden from electioneering."

So, like, they can support candidates. Just not from the pulpit. First Amendment and separation of church and state and all that.

[The United Territories of Providence]

This Black Church endorsed Donald Trump

I'm pretty sure both of these are against the law. But are they? I have mixed feelings about churches being tax exempt, but I don't know that they shouldn't be able to endorse a candidate if they want to. Religion is inherently political.

If they wish to be involved in politics by directly endorsing a candidate they cannot be tax-exempt; to do otherwise would be to violate the first amendment.

Then we should create another section of the tax code that deals directly with churches and treats them separately from 501(c)(3) organizations. I don't think we need to tax churches like businesses, given their charitable nature and most in spite of the stereotype aren't exactly cash cows, and there should be an exceptionally low tax rate. I'm perfectly fine with a church endorsing a political candidate or political position. I would argue, that if the theology of a church is expressly conservative, then punishing that church for free exercise would be a violation of the 1st.

Currently, what we have I suppose could be interpreted as a violation of the 1st if you have churches endorsing people.

[Myrensis]

I would be more outraged if I didn't know this shit goes on all the time with evangelical churches, at least in my area.

It should cost them their tax-exempt status, but I've my doubts of any real enforcement.

The IRS seems unwilling to enforce the rules. According to The Atlantic, it's focused more on "education". Don't really know what that means.

Essentially it means asking them nicely not to do it, because they know if they actually went after Churches and stripped them of their status for it, the shit storm would be of epic proportions and there would be wailing of religious persecution from coast to coast.

Unfortunate, but that's the country we live in.

[Geilinor]

If they wish to be involved in politics by directly endorsing a candidate they cannot be tax-exempt; to do otherwise would be to violate the first amendment.

Then we should create another section of the tax code that deals directly with churches and treats them separately from 501(c)(3) organizations. I don't think we need to tax churches like businesses, given their charitable nature and most in spite of the stereotype aren't exactly cash cows, and there should be an exceptionally low tax rate. I'm perfectly fine with a church endorsing a political candidate or political position. I would argue, that if the theology of a church is expressly conservative, then punishing that church for free exercise would be a violation of the 1st.

Currently, what we have I suppose could be interpreted as a violation of the 1st if you have churches endorsing people.

What is a conflict of the First Amendment is giving a church that endorses candidates a tax exemption because the exemption is a form of support.

[USS Monitor]

If they wish to be involved in politics by directly endorsing a candidate they cannot be tax-exempt; to do otherwise would be to violate the first amendment.

Then we should create another section of the tax code that deals directly with churches and treats them separately from 501(c)(3) organizations. I don't think we need to tax churches like businesses, given their charitable nature and most in spite of the stereotype aren't exactly cash cows, and there should be an exceptionally low tax rate. I'm perfectly fine with a church endorsing a political candidate or political position. I would argue, that if the theology of a church is expressly conservative, then punishing that church for free exercise would be a violation of the 1st.

Currently, what we have I suppose could be interpreted as a violation of the 1st if you have churches endorsing people.

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

[Eol Sha]

Then we should create another section of the tax code that deals directly with churches and treats them separately from 501(c)(3) organizations. I don't think we need to tax churches like businesses, given their charitable nature and most in spite of the stereotype aren't exactly cash cows, and there should be an exceptionally low tax rate. I'm perfectly fine with a church endorsing a political candidate or political position. I would argue, that if the theology of a church is expressly conservative, then punishing that church for free exercise would be a violation of the 1st.

Currently, what we have I suppose could be interpreted as a violation of the 1st if you have churches endorsing people.

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

Indeed. The system is designed to detangle religious influences from the governance of the state.

[PaNTuXIa]

Clinton has been shown to rig elections before

You must give a source for this.

Her DNC rigging? She may have not rigged it herself, but DWS did.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Then we should create another section of the tax code that deals directly with churches and treats them separately from 501(c)(3) organizations. I don't think we need to tax churches like businesses, given their charitable nature and most in spite of the stereotype aren't exactly cash cows, and there should be an exceptionally low tax rate. I'm perfectly fine with a church endorsing a political candidate or political position. I would argue, that if the theology of a church is expressly conservative, then punishing that church for free exercise would be a violation of the 1st.

Currently, what we have I suppose could be interpreted as a violation of the 1st if you have churches endorsing people.

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

Then it's all just a matter of semantics then.

Southern Preacher: We need someone in the white house who can handle the job! If you'll turn with me to Old Testament to the book of Ruth and read the first few verses with me, you'll see that Ruth was a powerful woman. Ruth delivered the people from the wrath of the evil Hamon! Hamon sought to divide the people, prey on their fears...now I say I say I ain't talking about nobody, stick with me congregation! He sought to prey on the fears of the people. Now Ruth was the wife of the king, but unlike the wives of the kings before her...she would not be silent! Ruth was not silent! She spoke out for the people, she fought for what she believed in, and we need strong women in power! Women like Ruth! Now, let me ask you....given the choice of Ruth and Hamon...do you want Hamon? Greedy, Manipulating, Lying, No Taxes Hamon? or Do you want someone to fight for you in the face of adversity like Ruth? I say I wants Ruth!

[USS Monitor]

You must give a source for this.

Her DNC rigging? She may have not rigged it herself, but DWS did.

You're reaching.

[USS Monitor]

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

Then it's all just a matter of semantics then.

Southern Preacher: We need someone in the white house who can handle the job! If you'll turn with me to Old Testament to the book of Ruth and read the first few verses with me, you'll see that Ruth was a powerful woman. Ruth delivered the people from the wrath of the evil Hamon! Hamon sought to divide the people, prey on their fears...now I say I say I ain't talking about nobody, stick with me congregation! He sought to prey on the fears of the people. Now Ruth was the wife of the king, but unlike the wives of the kings before her...she would not be silent! Ruth was not silent! She spoke out for the people, she fought for what she believed in, and we need strong women in power! Women like Ruth! Now, let me ask you....given the choice of Ruth and Hamon...do you want Hamon? Greedy, Manipulating, Lying, No Taxes Hamon? or Do you want someone to fight for you in the face of adversity like Ruth? I say I wants Ruth!

That's legal.

For one thing, if you do decide your vote for based on your preacher telling you we need a strong woman who speaks up for the people, it could be used to justify voting for either Clinton or Stein.

[Ngelmish]

You must give a source for this.

Her DNC rigging? She may have not rigged it herself, but DWS did.

No untoward changing of outcomes occurred, so calling that a rigged election is simply wrong.

[PaNTuXIa]

Her DNC rigging? She may have not rigged it herself, but DWS did.

No untoward changing of outcomes occurred, so calling that a rigged election is simply wrong.

She tried to atheist-shame Bernie to lower his chances in Kentucky and WV. This election was decided from Day 1. Her leaked emails showed cooperation between DWS and key members of the media and DNC staff in order to favor Hillary. They had editors come in and edit Reuters articles. I'd call that a rigged election.

[Nariterrr]

Then we should create another section of the tax code that deals directly with churches and treats them separately from 501(c)(3) organizations. I don't think we need to tax churches like businesses, given their charitable nature and most in spite of the stereotype aren't exactly cash cows, and there should be an exceptionally low tax rate. I'm perfectly fine with a church endorsing a political candidate or political position. I would argue, that if the theology of a church is expressly conservative, then punishing that church for free exercise would be a violation of the 1st.

Currently, what we have I suppose could be interpreted as a violation of the 1st if you have churches endorsing people.

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

They also cannot pay fees for partisan political events from church funds or allow candidates to solicit funds while speaking in church.

[Eol Sha]

No untoward changing of outcomes occurred, so calling that a rigged election is simply wrong.

She tried to atheist-shame Bernie to lower his chances in Kentucky and WV.

No, they didn't.

[New Chalcedon]

Black protestant pastors are breaking the law by politicking for Hillary Clinton during their sermons.

So this is interesting. What do you all think?

Talk to us after someone has prosecuted the Catholic bishops and cardinals for preaching against politicians from the pulpit. Or the Southern Baptist preachers railing against the "godless liberals" in Washington. Or the...well, you get the point. Politicking from the pulpit may theoretically risk a church's 501(c)(3) status, but for the IRS to go after these churches, while ignoring all the rest? I can't see it happening.

[PaNTuXIa]

She tried to atheist-shame Bernie to lower his chances in Kentucky and WV.

No, they didn't.

Or rather, her cronies.

[Saiwania]

If 538's Nowcast is really accurate, then South Carolina and Missouri are on the verge of getting flipped.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

Then it's all just a matter of semantics then.

Southern Preacher: We need someone in the white house who can handle the job! If you'll turn with me to Old Testament to the book of Ruth and read the first few verses with me, you'll see that Ruth was a powerful woman. Ruth delivered the people from the wrath of the evil Hamon! Hamon sought to divide the people, prey on their fears...now I say I say I ain't talking about nobody, stick with me congregation! He sought to prey on the fears of the people. Now Ruth was the wife of the king, but unlike the wives of the kings before her...she would not be silent! Ruth was not silent! She spoke out for the people, she fought for what she believed in, and we need strong women in power! Women like Ruth! Now, let me ask you....given the choice of Ruth and Hamon...do you want Hamon? Greedy, Manipulating, Lying, No Taxes Hamon? or Do you want someone to fight for you in the face of adversity like Ruth? I say I wants Ruth!

This would be perfectly legal to do.

[Ngelmish]

No untoward changing of outcomes occurred, so calling that a rigged election is simply wrong.

She tried to atheist-shame Bernie to lower his chances in Kentucky and WV. This election was decided from Day 1. Her leaked emails showed cooperation between DWS and key members of the media and DNC staff in order to favor Hillary. They had editors come in and edit Reuters articles. I'd call that a rigged election.

No member of the media ever asked Sanders about his religious beliefs or lack thereof. There was no public attempt to play gotcha with his religious beliefs. What there was is one email exchange between two lower-level staffers having a conversation about beliefs they are politically entitled to, but which were professionally unethical in this context. Those people are all now fired, it should also be noted.

As for the alleged coordination between the DNC and the media, that doesn't demonstrate that outcomes were changed. Bernie Sanders was never in striking distance of winning the majority of pledged delegates, therefore never in striking distance of winning the nomination. This was true, incidentally, even after he overwhelmingly blew Clinton out in New Hampshire and the media/DNC didn't swoop in to save her campaign. Sanders did that himself, by choosing to largely write off the south.

Finally even if your allegations here were proven true, that still wouldn't be evidence that Clinton rigs elections. It would, at most, be evidence that DWS ineffectively (and improperly, I grant) tried to put her thumb on the scale in one election.

Now, if you want to complain about DNC bias, which was certainly present, but not in the fundamentally illegal way you've suggested, complain about Larry Lessig who tried running for president for a few weeks, was told he would get the accreditation to get on the debate stage and then never gotten back to.

[Nariterrr]

Churches are allowed to push political ideologies or policies, just not candidates.

Then it's all just a matter of semantics then.

Southern Preacher: We need someone in the white house who can handle the job! If you'll turn with me to Old Testament to the book of Ruth and read the first few verses with me, you'll see that Ruth was a powerful woman. Ruth delivered the people from the wrath of the evil Hamon! Hamon sought to divide the people, prey on their fears...now I say I say I ain't talking about nobody, stick with me congregation! He sought to prey on the fears of the people. Now Ruth was the wife of the king, but unlike the wives of the kings before her...she would not be silent! Ruth was not silent! She spoke out for the people, she fought for what she believed in, and we need strong women in power! Women like Ruth! Now, let me ask you....given the choice of Ruth and Hamon...do you want Hamon? Greedy, Manipulating, Lying, No Taxes Hamon? or Do you want someone to fight for you in the face of adversity like Ruth? I say I wants Ruth!

Its in a grey area, legally you aren't allowed to endorse or ELUDE to endorse a candidate. Legally, I think the Church did violate the law, even though it was extremely vauge.