I don't understand why you're complaining about it. You would praise Trump for building it, would you praise Biden?

Republicans need to get better at election fraud themselves. — wonderer1

They tried quite a lot in 2020. I expect their 2024 efforts will be even further ramped up.

They're convinced leftists are cheating because they know conservatives are cheating. And Bidens 2020 win has definitely convinced them of that even more, and they're going to try harder.

Here's a CNN list of 24 former Trump aides and allies all of whom now see him as a threat to democracy — Wayfarer

This must be historically unprecedented in the United States, maybe with the exception of Nixon, right? To have so many turn on you?

What frustrates me is that this is clear evidence that he really is as shit of a human being as us libtards think he is, but MAGAts will convince themselves this is evidence that everyone who turned on him is a RINO or they were captured by the deep state or some other shit. They couldn't possibly grapple with the possibility that his allies started calling him an evil fuck after a while because they found out he is, in fact, an evil fuck.

What if I've been wrong? — GRWelsh

I hope everyone here is capable of asking themselves that question seriously from time to time whether they support Donald trump or not, about any of their beliefs, political or otherwise.

I hope you don't think trump dropped fewer bombs

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-dropping-bombs-at-unprecedented-levels/

Because it's incredibly inappropriate, just in terms of basic decency and values, for an American president to talk that way about American POWs

"

I like people who weren’t captured.

That's not a statement about only John McCain. It's not a leap. It's his words.

If I was being critical of some guy who happens to be white, and I said "I prefer people who aren't white," it would be pretty obvious that I'm not talking about JUST the guy who happens to be white. I'm disparaging all white people to insult one white person.

But the words he said about John McCain are applicable to other veterans who got captured. He aimed his comments at "people who were captured", which includes a lot more people than John McCain. Do you see that?

Trump, the same guy who said

“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

I mean, it all fits the kind of way he talks about veterans. I don't find it unbelievable.

what context for you makes Trump look good given this paragraph?

In the statement, Kelly is confirming, on the record, a number of details in a 2020 story in The Atlantic by editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, including Trump turning to Kelly on Memorial Day 2017, as they stood among those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, and saying, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans

Trump's attitude on full display here. "What's in it for them?" is the top question on his mind when he thinks of a soldier that died for his country. That should make it unambiguously clear to everyone: Trump would never imagine doing what's good for other people if he doesn't personally get something out of it.

He never even in his own mind intended to serve America. He is only capable of serving himself.

Disgrace of a human being.

no need to apologize, but this post of yours looks very unnecessary in retrospect, doesn't it?

what does "on record" mean?

There's a reason why when I Google "Donald trump witness tampering", the only results I get are articles about what he hypothetically could be charged with, and not what he is charged with.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts

I don't know why c2 is documented alongside witness tampering codes, all I know is c2 is not witness tampering.

he's not being charged with witness tampering, regardless of the title of the statute. You and I both know that.

I think you've mistakenly read the title of the statute and stopped there.

(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The crime is the same and just as stupid in both cases. It’s a witness tampering crime — NOS4A2

You think the crime Trump is being charged with is Witness Tampering? — flannel jesus

It appears to be so. — NOS4A2

It isn’t about witnesses — NOS4A2

That isn't what you were saying before

Please read this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/07/28/what-crimes-was-trump-charged-with-in-federal-documents-case-heres-what-to-know-as-doj-brings-new-charges/

This gives some detail as to why 1512 is ONE OF the specific charges. It doesn't seem to be about witnesses at all.

you keep saying "that statute". He has multiple charges. Which statute are you referring to as "that statute"?

You said he's only being charged with witness tampering. Your only argument to support that is that you're not a lawyer and therefore are unqualified to determine if the thing he's being charged with is Witness Tampering?

please be specific. Right now it seems immensely clear to me that he's being charged with numerous things other than intimidating witnesses, and it's not clear to me he's even being charged with intimidating witnesses at all.

Do you have any resources to demonstrate why you think he's being charged with just witness tampering?

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2023/aug/02/donald-trump-indictment-what-are-charges-what-happens-next

Michael gave a nice answer. As far as I can tell, witness tampering isn't even one of the charges.

No, I think you're misinterpreting a whole lot if you think that's the meat of Trump's alleged crimes.

That may be ONE of Trump's crimes, I guess, though I don't know that he's even been charged for it.

You think the crime Trump is being charged with is Witness Tampering?

Religion's static dogma contradicts science's logical and dynamic nature. — finarfin

That's just a claim that their methods to find "truths" conflict, which needs to be distinguished from the idea that the truths themselves conflict.

It's because it's politically motivated, which makes sense - it's conservative Revenge, in Trump's own words. Dems dared to hold Trump responsible for his crimes, so they have to get revenge, by any means.

it means whatever China is actually doing, that isn't communism, is "workable" by some metric. Though almost certainly not optimal

not practice really, we both know that. It's not communist in practice.

I think China has proven it does work. A couple years ago they had the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, for example. But it has also proven that communism, like all grand collectivist ideologies, is tantamount to state capitalism. — NOS4A2

I'm glad you pointed out China is really just a perverse form of capitalism.

China doesn't really prove anything in favour of or against communism, imo, for that very reason. China is not a country which can honestly truthfully be said to be communist in anything but name.

I think your approach is promising, but I also think it's at least currently incomplete. "Consciousness is just computation", while I agree is actually a compelling possibility, still leaves us with the question, "so why do I experience seeing blue and green and yellow and red in the ways I see them?"

Chinese Room, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the answer really was just computation of some sort in the end, but I don't think you're giving the Hard Problem enough credit in your post.

If you assume it is primitive then you have solved the hard problem. — FrancisRay

If you assume anything is primitive, you can answer the same "how" question. How does consciousness arise? It's primitive. How does life work? It's primitive (see Vital Force, an idea which lost favour when scientists were able to build up a picture of life working via electro chemical processes).

Some things are primitive, of course, and it may be that consciousness is, but it feels more like a non answer to me than an answer. It feels like giving up. "I can't think of how it could come about via any physical or non physical processes, so it must be fundamental". That's exactly how Vital Force explained the processes of life, up until we had the means to explain it electro-chemically.

Maybe it's fundamental, but probably, I think, we just don't have the answer yet, and the idea that it's primitive will start disappearing when we have a picture of the mechanisms involved, like life itself.

So, when Tegmark speaks of the mathematical universe - a creation whose structure is somehow mathematics - how can that be? Doesn't structure require a framework of sorts? And one would think physical. — jgill

I have the opposite intuition - doesn't a physical structure require a framework of sorts? And one would think mathematical (or computational/algorithmic).

The strength of a conspiracy theory decreases the more people you need to be in on the lie. Climate Change as a conspiracy theory needs the vast majority of the scientific community in on the lie. To think that an industry that barely even existed 3 decades ago could out-fund the oil industry into convincing all these scientists to lie - when we KNOW that the oil industry was wealthy and was willing to fund propaganda for a fact - is really super duper absurd.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=We%20now%20have%20totally%20unimpeachable,Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20Development%20funds.

Again, from the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money — Agree-to-Disagree

"Follow the money". Fantastic advice. Let's follow the money for your source.

https://climateinvestigations.org/heritage-foundation/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money.

it's a good question, and even though I feel like I have an intuitive understanding of the idea, I don't think I could express it clearly myself.

It's talked about to some degree here, https://spotify.link/zMHaM1TQiDb

Sure, we can't yet explain it with matter. It's not like we can explain it with something else either. It's not like there's some other more complete alternative that sufficiently gives an account of consciousness.
— flannel jesus
Maybe there is something else we can explain it with. Maybe something non-physical is also present. We have no problem accepting that space and time are one, or that matter warps it. And wet have no problem accepting the impossible, contradictory nature of quantum mechanics. I don't think the idea that there is something non-physical involved with consciousness is any more outlandish, considering none of the people who know the most about physics and neurons can find an explanation that only involves the physical.

When I said it's not like we can explain it with something else, that wasn't an ontological statement - that wasn't me saying, ontologically, i KNOW nothing else exists that can explain it. I'm saying we, as human beings, and specifically the scientific community, doesn't have to hand some other thing, some other promising realm of non-physics that gives us some clear unambiguous explanation of consciousness. There might BE some non physical thing that explains it in the end, but that explanation doesn't exist right now, for us to study.

So when someone says "materialism can't explain consciousness", that's true, right now - right now materialism can't explain consciousness - but that's not some unique failing of materialism. Right now, NO ONE can explain consciousness - not with matter, and not with anything else either. Materialism can't explain it right now, non-materialism can't explain it right now, it's entirely (or just mostly?) unexplained right now. The explanation is yet to be found.

To me, that shouldn't really count as a point against materialism - it's often presented like it is.

That's of course fine for you to think that, but your question was 'why should we suppose?' and the answer is 'because everything we can sense and detect tells us we should suppose.'

You can of course disagree with those things, but the supposition isn't like some outlandish idea. We're supposing it because it's right in front of us to suppose. If I see a duck swimming in a pond, I'm going to suppose that that pond has a duck swimming in it.

Why should we suppose there exists a physical brain made of non-mental stuff? — RogueAI

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but my impulse is to answer that we've seen physical brains by opening up skulls. That's why I suppose they exist. Do you suppose physical brains don't exist?