I want to understand Jake, and I am sure it due to my ignorance, but to me at least you are just constantly describing a state of affairs, but never put forth a complete and coherent idea of how we are to proceed if we accept your state of affairs. Can you be clearer on what you would have us all actually do. — Rank Amateur

I understand what you're saying. What I'm very imperfectly attempting to do is encourage readers to follow the logic trail on their own, thus I'm deliberately not filling in all the blanks. I'm not doing that great of a job of this, and honestly, once one leaves the comfortable familiarity of the God debate one's audience tends to tune out or go bye-bye.

Anyway, on to your request. What I'm suggesting is...

The God debate generates various answers which are then debated. I'm attempting to escape that failed pattern by pointing out that ANY answer that can be offered will just be a symbol, and a mere symbol is not really what we are seeking. The proof of this is that we keep looking, searching, reaching for something, we're still hungry, no matter how many religions and philosophies we invent.

Religion was invented as thought became more dominant in the human experience and thus the intimate primal bond animals and primitive humans had with reality was diluted to the point of being lost. The concept of "getting back to God" was born. This is the Adam and Eve story, we ate the apple of knowledge (ie. thought) thus expelling ourselves from the Garden of Eden. And now we're looking for a way back in. The first book in the Bible, brilliant, just outdated.

Thought operates by a process of division. Understanding this is key.

Thus, to the degree we are thinking, the unity with reality (and each other) that we seek remains out of reach. This is the steep price tag for the awesome powers that thought delivers. We are brilliant, and yet insane.

The great mistake of most religions is in attempting to cure the disease of disunity with thought, that which is the source of the disease. And so for example, we see Christianity make the earnest very well intentioned attempt to create unity through beliefs, while dissolving in to endless internal division within itself.

The mistake is in not realizing that the fundamental human problem does not arise from thought content, and thus can not be solved at that level. The problem arises from the medium itself, as proven by the fact that no thought content ever invented has brought us to the experience of unity which we seek. As evidence we can observe how every ideology ever invented has inevitably fallen victim to internal division and conflict.

From this perspective the God debate is essentially pointless, not only because nothing can be proven, but more so because whatever answer is chosen will still be a product of thought, and thus will still generate the experience of division and not the experience of unity.

So, this is of course way too wordy, evidence of my own poor writing skills. A better suggestion could be for readers to simply ignore all the theory above, get out in to nature somewhere, and learn how to lower the volume of thought. And then you will see for yourselves. Once that which is obscuring the experience of unity is removed, the Garden of Eden which has always been there reappears in our human experience.

I think that this place can be reached via either reason or faith, which is another reason why the God debate is pointless, and why I encourage readers to stay on whatever path they can best relate to.

As example, Catholic doctrine teaches that God is ever present in all times and places. Ok, that's great. Thus, I don't have to struggle to reach God because He's already there, everywhere. All I need to do is turn down the volume of that which is obscuring God from me, the apple of knowledge I ate in the Garden of Eden. But of course at the moment I label that experience "God" I'm back in land of thought and the experience is again reduced to being merely an idea.

We don't really want ideas about unity. We want the experience of unity. We think ideas are the path to the experience, but really they are the obstacle in the path. Thus, ignorance is good.

Whaddya know, the God debate has delivered useful information after all. But of course we're going to ignore it. :smile: And thus the human drama continues.

Hope something in there is useful. Gonna shut up now before I crash the server. :smile:

None of your analysis matters at all. You're completely ignoring the purpose of this thread, which again is...

WHO CAN BEAT TRUMP??

That's the first test any candidate has to pass. If they don't have a convincing strategy for beating Trump, nothing else they believe or say matters a bit.

I've offered Mattis as one possible interesting candidate. You've offered no alternative. That's the kind of sloppy thinking that will earn us 6 more years of Trump.

Just for fun I'll try to phrase this in your kind of language.

What if God has answered the question we've been asking in the God debate?

"What is The Answer??", we cried again and again.

And again and again God answered, "Your ignorance. You can be united with me and with each other in your ignorance."

But we didn't like that answer, so we asked again and again. And again and again came back the ever patient reply, "Your ignorance."

But we said, "No, no, no, stop fooling around God, we know what we want, we want some knowledge!!"

And God sighed, rolled his eyes to himself, and asked us in return...

"Didn't I already address this in the very first book of the Bible?"

Well because it's your right as a voter to believe that some particular candidate is the most likely to win an election, or the only plausible winner, — John Doe

Not any point I made. I'm making an argument for out of the box candidates, with Mattis being only an example. I clearly said in my opening post I don't know that much about him.

Personally, I think there are many excellent candidates available to the democrats. — John Doe

There are many candidates with solid Democrat credentials. Hillary Clinton had that out the wazoo. She lost.

I also think you overestimate how dire the situation is for a party that won two presidential elections in a row then won the popular vote in the third election despite an historically disliked candidate, a massive October surprise, and significant foreign influence. — John Doe

Trump clobbered every professional politician he encountered. All of them. Every one of them. In both parties. He didn't just beat Clinton, he beat everybody, including the media that was confidently predicting his demise up until the very end. I think you under estimate how dangerous complacency is.

Of course I want to beat Trump like any democrat, and I am not sure why you think this is in question. — John Doe

I've already explained that above. You've articulated no success strategy other than more of the same which has already failed. I accept that you are a sincere Democrat, I don't accept that you are serious about winning. And I'm saying this not so much to you personally as I am the entire Democratic Party.

s that if you're reacting with such contempt to my presenting you with facts that you can verify for yourself, yet refuse to do so — John Doe

This is a philosophy forum. Each person making a claim bears the burden for supporting their own claim. Again, I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you present good evidence that Mattis is a Republican I will accept that conclusion. But I still want to know if he is the one who can beat Trump.

I can only imagine how you'll react to a speculative discussion about potential candidates and their merits. — John Doe

Put some on the table who you think can beat Trump and I'm all ears.

You have obviously concluded for some strange reason that Mattis is the only plausible candidate. — John Doe

I've never said anything like this, and you are now just making shit up.

Do you want to beat Trump, or not? Why is everyone being so shy about such a simple question? What is preventing you from typing, "Yes, I want to beat Trump!!" No, it's not an obvious given, because you've not yet shared any strategy for actually winning, but have instead shared a strategy which failed only 2 years ago.

If you're interested in an open conversation then I would suggest you consider following-up on facts which as they are presented and respond to reasonable comments without turning on the caps-lock. — John Doe

It's your claim, you do the homework and present it to us. Until then I'm sticking with NPR.

I apologize for the cap locks, but you are blatantly ignoring the question of this thread..

WHO CAN WIN??

A democrat, or at the very least someone who represents democratic aspirations and shares democratic values. — John Doe

We did that already. We lost. So....

Who specifically? Which Democrat? Again, it doesn't matter if a candidate "represents democratic aspirations and shares democratic values" unless they can win. Who can win?

The story I heard on NPR, a media outlet I trust a bit more than anonymous strangers on the Internuts, that Mattis has been a life long Democrat. That could be wrong, I could have heard it wrong, these are possibilities I grant. I basically don't care, and here's why, for about the 10th time...

DO YOU WANT TO BEAT TRUMP, OR NOT, YES OR NO???

If yes, who do you propose that would have a better chance of beating Trump than Mattis? I'm entirely open to that conversation. I will admit to growing weary of the usual forum routine of "whatever somebody else says is wrong, but we have no solutions of our own to offer". That's lazy, raise your game my good fellows!

What if they wish to remain squarely within the realm of reason? — Jake

I am not sure this is possible, certainly there is great empirical evidence it is not. — Rank Amateur

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that we are incapable of finding The Answer to the largest of questions, we agree on that.

But we don't have to accept a search for The Answer as being the only valid way of proceeding with the inquiry. We can "remain squarely within the realm of reason" by questioning that assumption. We can observe the evidence that a search by both theists and atheists for An Answer has not worked, in spite of the most earnest efforts of some of our greatest minds on all sides of the question. We can discard what is not working, and try something else. All of this is surely possible within the realm of reason.

We as creatures appear to have a need to understand why we exist, what is our purpose. — Rank Amateur

To quibble a bit, actually most people don't care about any of this at all. You're confusing philosophy nerds like us with normal sane humans. :smile:

That quibble aside, it's surely true that many of us will ask such questions. And it's also true that every one has a right to whatever answers they prefer, which I think is your point regarding mutual respect of faith based beliefs. However, that is the path of faith, not the path of reason. Reason would look more like this...

1) We want credible answers.
2) The evidence suggests that we can't have them.
3) Ok, so why do we want answers?
4) Can we meet that need by some method other than answers?

The point here is that just because the quest for reliable theist or atheist flavored answers has failed we don't have to quit, nor do we have to retreat in to faith and fantasy knowings of whatever flavor. We might choose to do these things, which is fine, but we are not required to do so.

We can instead be loyal to reason by accepting the results of the inquiry we've invested so much work in. We are ignorant.

If one starts with the assumption that the only valid solution is An Answer, then the discovery that we are ignorant is bad news.

But again, we don't have to accept that assumption just because most theists and atheists do so. We are free to discard that assumption. We are free to look upon the ignorance we've discovered as a potential asset which might be put to good use. Again, when the Europeans mistakenly discovered North America, they didn't just quit and go home. They took what they found and put it to good use.

The path of reason. Accept what the evidence tells us, and use that information to continue the inquiry.

Basically it says we as humans have some need to understand why we exist, this question has no answer, this is absurd. — Rank Amateur

Ah, but if we can meet that need by some method other than answers, the absurdity is removed.

It is as though you are completely dissolving away from the inside and you no longer have a sense of internal reference to a stable, singular self. So it's not a moral desire, it's something like a frightening, terrifyingly vivid realization of the fact that self is a manufactured entity. — aporiap

Seems like a good description, thanks for adding it. :up:

You make good points, but you've fallen in to the trap of not addressing the question at hand, which is....

Do you want Trump to have another 6 years in office, yes or no?

If you answer yes, peace be with you, and conversation over.

If you answer no then the question is, who can beat Trump in the next election? It simply doesn't matter what some hypothetical Democratic candidate believes if they can't beat Trump.

I'm not arguing that Mattis is the only Dem who can beat Trump, or even that he is the best choice. I'm saying only that he seems a more interesting prospect than anyone I've seen mentioned as a possible Dem candidate so far.

It's entirely reasonable to point to objections anyone might have with Mattis, but if it's not Mattis, then who do the critics of Mattis have in mind? If no one specific, then you should be able to understand my concern. Who exactly is it that we Dems will put in charge of defeating Trump? As the last election should have demonstrated, it had better be somebody good.

Because we don't have that luxury. People who believe in certain religions believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that women should cover their heads, that adulterers should be stoned... — Isaac

And millions of utterly innocent people were pointlessly slaughtered by explicitly atheist regimes over the last century, a real world fact I see you forgot to mention.

When you're ready to actually walk away from religion perhaps we might talk again. For now, it appears that you're not quite ready to let it go, and I don't know of any useful method of penetrating the distraction that attachment is generating.

"Why do we feel alone?" he asks. The religious answer is that man is fallen and that fallen man lost the sense of oneness and unity which he enjoyed in the Garden before the fall. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and imho, that is a correct answer, but it is phrased in language that is foreign to many in the modern audience. We might attempt an updated translation, something like....

The emergence of thought in human beings caused us to psychologically fall out of reality in to the much smaller symbolic realm between our ears. To use the modern expression, we are "lost in thought".

Science worshipers will declare that thought has proven itself to be very useful, and that is of course correct. What they're not seeing and dealing with however is that this powerful tool comes with a large price tag, the loss of the sense of oneness and unity. And so we see phenomena like this, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, and insane enough to actually do so.

Discarding religion does not on it's own solve this problem.

The religious solution to being cold, wet, miserable and lonely is to find reconciliation with God and our fellow cold, wet, miserable and lonely fellows traveling through this world of woe. — Bitter Crank

Yes, religions often attempt to reestablish the sense of oneness with reality through the creation of a relatable human-like character such as a God. We are of course free to discard this device if it doesn't work for us, but doing so does not solve the problem, but instead presents us with the challenge of finding or inventing some alternative path to the same desired destination, the experience of oneness and unity.

Jake - I have seen you make this point, and I have tried to see where you are going with this. Sadly you lose me each time you make the point we should proceed to some other place based on the acknowledgment of what we don't know. — Rank Amateur

Ok, no problem, I seem to lose everybody, so you are not alone.

Part of the problem is perhaps that I'm trying not to spoon feed ideas but instead lay out the reasoning that leads to those ideas, and hope that some readers might follow the trail themselves.

You have followed the trail in your own way, by suggesting that a next step after recognizing our mutual ignorance would be for both theists and atheists to respect the faith foundation of the other's perspective. I agree with you that a first step in that process would be for atheists to see and acknowledge the faith foundation of their own perspective.

I'm not arguing with your proposal, just trying to chart an alternative course to widen the options. What if someone, theist or atheist, doesn't wish to retreat in to faith? What if they find themselves unable to swallow fantasy knowings of either the theist or atheist flavor? What if they wish to remain squarely within the realm of reason?

Such a person would seem to be like the European explorers who went looking for the Orient and found another continent instead. They don't want to pretend that what they discovered is the Orient. And so they are stuck having to figure out how to make the best of what they did discover.

Theists and atheists are united in the rarely examined assumption that finding The Answer should be the goal of the investigation. What if we did find The Answer, and it is that we are ignorant? What if we are discarding what we've discovered because it's not what we were hoping to find, because the ignorance we discovered doesn't sufficiently flatter us? What if what we did find is actually more valuable and useful than what we were looking for?

To me, this is where the path of reason leads. Instead of retreating in to fantasy and faith, how do we face the fact of our ignorance and make good use of what we've discovered?

Here we are, like it or not, in the midst of a huge mystery. Why be in such a big hurry to pretend otherwise? Why not stick around a bit to explore and enjoy what we've discovered?

All it is saying is, there is no argument based on reason that concludes with; therefore we can say this about the nature of such a thing as God, or what such a thing would do or not do. If one finds this argument compelling, that would say most arguments for or against God that rely on any assumption about the nature of God is unreasonable and should be dismissed from a philosophical point of view. — Rank Amateur

Ok, so once we've dismissed all arguments for or against the existence of God, then what? I agree with your analysis, and would like to see where you envision it leading.

We might recall the Europeans who sailed west hoping to find a shortcut to the Orient. They didn't find what they were seeking, but found something else instead, North America. Instead of saying, "Fuck this, it's not the Orient" and then going home, they explored what they did find and put it to good use.

That's where I see your line of thought leading. We had a huge God debate hoping to find The Answer, but instead discovered a vast realm of ignorance. We don't like what we found, so we keep pretending we found what we were looking for, so the God debate lives on.

Wouldn't be more rational to accept the results of the investigation and then turn our attention to making good use of what's been discovered?

People are imaginative, curious, intelligent... We like to know what is going on. For the last several hundred years we've been using science (broadly defined) to figure out what is going on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's part of it. Though I must admit I find the comparisons between science and religion which dominate philosophy forums to be overblown. The constant comparison is basically an attempt to declare the acquisition of knowledge to be the "one true way" and then measure everything by that standard.

Imagine that you and I attend the theater together and in the middle of the first act I jump up and yell that this story is totally fictitious and the people on stage aren't real they're just actors!!! Technically, I am correct. But because of my insistence on comparing art to science I've been unable to offer any useful commentary on the value of art.

We sometimes feel isolated, alone, alienated, cold, wet, and miserable. A warm dry god comes in handy at times like those. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and the useful question here is, why do we feel alone? We might shift our focus to trying to better understand the problem which god theories are attempting to address. This seems particularly relevant to those who find they are unable to be involved in religion.

If religion doesn't work for a person I agree they should discard that which isn't working for them. But discarding one possible solution does not in itself solve the problem.

If I'm trying to repair my car and one tool isn't working it makes sense to put that tool down. But the car won't be fixed until I select another tool which does work. Throwing the first tool on the ground in frustration and then ceaselessly yelling at it is not really the most rational way to fix the car.

Science (broadly defined) doesn't do a very good job of being a warm dry god. More often than not, science is a cold wind that chills us a little deeper. — Bitter Crank

Yes, just as religion is lousy science, so far at least science is lousy religion.

There will be no impeachment without some evidence of a crime. — frank

Gotta agree, and it's going to have to be rock solid evidence of a serious crime, so that the Republican Senate has no choice but to convict. The next election will likely be here before any of that can happen. If Trump wins the next election, then we may need to start discussing things which are illegal to discuss. I have no idea what that could be, no idea at all, not even the slightest clue, it's a total mystery, but we may find ourselves there at some point.

How do I deal with this because I sure don't want to quit? — krishnamurti

Well, it is generally considered logical to stop doing things which cause us pain.

It seems that in the more technological, more scientific, more educated societies, belief in supernatural theism is on a rapid and steep decline particularly among the younger population. — prothero

And yet it is the more technological, more scientific, more educated societies which are leading the pell mell rush towards civilization collapse. It's we who created nuclear weapons, and it's we who have generated the most CO2 emissions. And particularly here in the U.S. it is we who are stubbornly ignoring the existential nuclear threat which we ourselves created, and we who are turning our back on the climate change threat as well.

Apparently, walking away from traditional religions is not the panacea some might claim.

There is literally nothing to say about religion in the language game of a forum like this. — Isaac

Why did religion arise in the first place? That's a discussion about religion which need not either attack or promote religion.

To me, the rational procedure is to identify fundamental human needs and attempt to meet those needs by whatever method works for a person.

I did promise myself that I would not get involved in this kind of nonsense, but I just have to ask, what is this method you're referring to for "exploring and perhaps meeting the fundamental human need which is fueling interest in God topics"? — Isaac

For you, and many of our other members, the first step might be this...

Forget about religion. Get over it already and move on. Religion clearly is a tool which doesn't work for many, so if that applies to you, be sensible and put the tool which doesn't work down, and walk away, putting it behind you forever.

PLEASE NOTE: Waving the tool of religion around in the air and claiming it is nonsense is not walking away, it's still being engaged, attached, bound to religion.

I'm being sincere here, not snotty or sarcastic, just to be clear. I'm attempting to escape the typical "our side vs. their side" God debate, because the evidence says to me that's going nowhere.

And so to Rank I would say, if religion is working for you, good, go with that. And to Isaac I'd say, if religion is not working for you, ok no problem, walk away and forget about religion.

Once the ever distracting God debate is swept off the table, perhaps that would be a good time to look at properties of the human condition which give rise to all these topics.

Whether Baptist, Bahá'í, or Baboonism, one can avoid godly discussion with them because you already know that they don't know, can't know, and will never know what they are talking about. — Bitter Crank

Except um, this would also be true of the person (like me for example) claiming that they don't know what they're talking about. If it's true the subject is beyond human ability, that would include all of us, not just "those other people over there".

And so we arrive at not Baboonism, but Bozoism. :smile: Bozoism claims that 1) an overwhelming pile of evidence points to ignorance being our mutually shared condition and 2) mining this abundant asset would be the logical way to proceed.

Jake - thanks the thoughts. — Rank Amateur

And thanks for the thread.

I think the natural tension between philosophy and theology is a good thing. — Rank Amateur

Sure, agreed. But, to be clear, that's not what I'm referring to in my comments. Personally, I'm referring to the tension between experience, and interpretations of experience.

To put it in your language (and with apologies that I've already said this) the Apostle John said "God is love". Love is an experience, not a philosophy or theology about experience. John's statement that love=god is of course a theology, but I forgive him for that sin :smile: because he boiled the theology down to three simple words, at least in this particular case. Three simple words which get directly to the point. If we're going to do theology that seems like a model that has merit.

This tension allows us to continually test where the boundary is. This is good as long as the objective is truth. — Rank Amateur

Ok, but what is truth? Philosophers and theologians typically see "truth" as being ideas about reality, a collection of symbols whose relative merits can be examined. Conversations like this one typically take place within the model which asks, "which collection of symbols are the best?"

From my perspective, all symbols are made of thought, an information medium which operates by a process of division. So if the task at hand is an attempt to somehow transcend the experience of separation which is at the heart of the human experience, to reach for unity with reality and each other, it seems unlikely that a symbol building activity built upon a process of division would be the logical tool to choose.

That is, I'm proposing that no collection of symbols can be "the truth", just as a highway sign isn't the town it is pointing to. If true, then what we're left with is experience.

Speaking to the Catholic perspective, it might be noted that while billions of people will never be able to believe in Jesus no matter how hard they might try, the experience of love is accessible to all human beings in all times and places.

I've been making a similar point in many threads, so count me in as being in agreement. It makes perfect sense to me that if there is something like a God, it's ability would be so far beyond our own that we become rather like ants trying to understand the Internet.

As best I can tell from discussing this for 20 years, philosophy can get to this point and then it gives up and quits. Rather than continue to build on this logic and explore the trail further, philosophers typically retreat back in to the familiar very well worn merry-go-round to nowhere patterns of the God debate.

As best I can tell, this happens because philosophy is experienced not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. Thus, any path that appears to lead away from philosophy is rejected. To explore this theory, imagine that it were proven beyond all doubt that the best way to explore the God subject was to go bowling. Would we step away from philosophy and go bowling? If not, then what we're really interested in is philosophy and not God, and so we shouldn't be surprised if our God investigations never seem to go anywhere.

If a God investigation were to proceed beyond the same old tiresome ruts we might focus on two realities:

1) There has been an incredible level of interest in this subject for thousands of years, and...

2) Nobody is able to prove any position on that subject.

To summarize, some fundamental human need is driving this interest, and philosophy is not able to meet that need.

Why is philosophy not able to meet the need fueling the God debate? Imho, that's because philosophy is made of thought, the very thing generating the need. That is, thought is seen as the solution, when really it is the problem.

Why is thought the problem? The fundamental human need driving interest in this subject is a profound desire to reunite with reality, to overcome a sense of separation which generates fear, which in turn is the source of many human problems. Thought can not meet this desire for unity, because thought operates by a process of division.

As evidence, consider how all the great religions try to sell us some collection of thoughts regarding achieving unity with God and each other, and what typically happens instead is that these religions divide internally and begin to go to war within themselves. These religions generally have sincere good intentions, but don't realize they are trying to create unity using a tool, thought, whose explicit purpose is to create division.

The logic failure operating here is the unwarranted leap from the fact that thought is a very useful tool for very many jobs, to the unexamined assumption that therefore thought is the best tool for EVERY job. Theists and atheists seem united in making this mistake, and the more adamant they are about their position the more that is true.

So what then? Where do we go from here? It seems the philosopher should make a clear minded decision as to what their priority really is. Is it doing philosophy? Or is it in exploring and perhaps meeting the fundamental human need which is fueling interest in God topics?

If there is no compelling evidence that philosophy will ever lead to anything but more of the same old God debate we're already heard a million times, do we keep doing philosophy anyway, or do we set philosophy aside and search for other more useful tools?

What is our real interest?

And I think that the American voters aren't yet so tired of the partisanship and of loathing the other party that they really would want a President who seeks consensus. — ssu

Good point. It seems an issue of timing. Sooner or later the polarization fad pendulum will swing in the other direction. When exactly that will happen, whether 2020 is the moment for that, I would agree is unknown.

If you are right, then the only path forward would seem to be to get more Dems to the polls. And so perhaps we should recall, Hillary got more votes than Bernie.

A better tactic might be to embrace a more radical position and capture momentum, like Bernie did and like Trump did - and the latter was successful. — S

Good point. Bernie was remarkably successful too, for a guy who calls himself a socialist. Yes, if we could identify non-voting Dems and get them off the bench, that might work.

On the other hand, ideally we want a President who most people feel represents the country as a whole, and not just the nutzo wing of one of the political parties. You know, after the election there is governing, which can be hard to do if the election totally polarizes the country.

I understand what you're saying. But my actual argument is that the human species faces an existential challenge, and recognizing that science describes an understanding of reality provides a rationale for the application of technology necessary to secure sustainability. And, it seems to me, applying technology in relation to a scientifically valid understanding of reality would address your concern about 'power without limit. — karl stone

Ok, but where in the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" has any working scientist argued for limiting science research? With a few exceptions isn't the science culture dogma mantra full speed ahead on almost all fronts?

Where in your writing have you argued for limits on scientific research, any limits at all?

Or is the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" a utopian vision which you wish to present? If yes, then how do you propose to sell this vision to the scientific community, those who fund them, and the culture at large?

But since then, an incredible number of women have been mouthing off about how evil men are — ernestm

Well, taken as a whole, men are evil. Turn on your TV, and observe who it is that is ripping so many societies to shreds. The marriage between violent men and the knowledge explosion will inevitably bring civilization crashing down, as is already happening in places like Syria and Yemen etc.

Yes, yes, yes, not all men are evil, so you don't have to type that. But that's not going to matter once the evil men crash the system.

I'm guessing that Mattis leans further to the right than Hillary, which would count against him for someone like me. — S

Right, but you're going to vote Dem no matter what, right? Me too. So we don't count.

I am up at 4:00 am every morning — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Me too!

BTW, I was joking, and hope you are too.

And hey, where is my latte already??? :smile:

I'm against it. I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. I'd rather another Bernie-type, although I'm not sure who would best match that criteria or what their chances would be. — S

Right, that's the thing, what are their chances? Having a particular philosophy doesn't matter if one doesn't get elected, such as the last Bernie type.

Forget about Trump and think of contributing the best candidate for all the country. — DiegoT

In my view, the best candidate for the country is anybody but Trump. I hear what you're saying, generally wise advice, but this is an extreme situation. If Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse is the Democratic ticket, that's who I'll be voting for.

Could Mattis win the Democratic nomination? That's probably the big hole in my theory. The fact that he served in the Trump administration may doom him. I suspect that Mattis, a lifelong Dem, probably served in an attempt to save American foreign policy from Trump, but not sure a sufficient number of Dems will be able to see that.

I guess I'm just expressing my fear that the Dems will self destruct by nominating another one of their thoroughly mediocre candidates. So for listening to NPR all day every day has not revealed a candidate that seems to have a solid shot at beating Trump.

What happened isn't mainly that potential Bernie voters voted for Trump but rather that, after Hillary won the primaries, they didn't bother to vote at all. — Pierre-Normand

I wonder how happy they are with that decision now? But, I hear what you're saying and don't really disagree.

If the Dems were to run a progressive candidate, they will have to find one much better than Bernie or Warren in my view. There's more to winning than just having appropriate policy positions. Both Bernie and Warren are afflicted with the kind of personalities that have alienated people from the left for far too long. All angry all the time with large doses of snotty superiority just doesn't cut it.

There may a winning progressive out there somewhere who I haven't thought of. But until I see one I think can win, people like Mattis retain their appeal. To me, getting Trump out of office is the priority, and I want the candidate with the best chance of accomplishing that all important mission.

Mattis is of course a general, who is apparently not shy about his job of fighting wars. That's going to turn some people off. I can see every battlefield mistake being waved around like it was a war crime, that may be the pile of dirt that will be mined.

On the other hand, it seems Dems are typically having to prove that they can be tough where needed. Obama succeeded in making this case imho, while still being measured and careful and not jumping in to every fight. Can Mattis sell himself as being tough where needed, but not someone who will launch unnecessary wars? I don't know, need more information.

Before the primaries were over there frequently were heads up polls between possible nominee matchups. Trump against Hillary were usually evenly matched but Bernie against Trump typically showed Bernie having a 10% lead over Trump. You may be underestimating how much the electorate was fed up with the establishment, and not only the Republican electorate: The Bernie or Bust movement was quite intense too. — Pierre-Normand

I updated my quickie comment to add a bit more intelligent analysis above.

Yes, I am a Bernie fan, and agree with what you just said above. I agree that the disenchantment with the establishment was strong, but how does a Bernie voter become a Trump voter?? I voted for Bernie in the primary myself, but in the end had to hold my nose and vote for Hillary because the only other choice was simply too awful. But, maybe my own experience is over coloring my view of this, that could be possible.

I have heard from my Afghan side of my family that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The government there seems to be in shambles. — Wallows

I'm sorry to say this, but it appears the Afghans have had 20 years to get their act together and have been unable to do so. And now America has run out of patience is about to bail. It's sad, but it seems that in many parts of the world only the psychopaths can put together a stable government.

Many people who voted for Trump are liberals or centrists, and some even progressives, and they voted for him because they were dissatisfied with establishment politicians and/or neo-liberals and hence couldn't vote for Hillary. — Pierre-Normand

Imho, far too few of such folks to matter. I just can't picture the person who voted for Trump now voting for Warren.

My guess is that all Dems are going to vote against Trump no matter who the Democratic candidate is, though perhaps turnout would be affected by who the particular candidate is.

Another factor, how could Trump demonize Mattis when Trump praised him and selected him for very high office, and never fired him? If Mattis were the candidate, how does Trump do his thing?

I would agree that Mattis would likely alienate some progressives, but where are they going to go? Are they really going to stay home and thus essentially vote for Trump? My guess is that such folks whine and complain, but in the end would pull the lever for Mattis, their hatred of Trump being so extreme.

Another guess is that the Trump henchmen are already digging through Mattis's history looking for some kind of dirt they can sling. If there's any thing there, that could kill this theory. And of course Mattis may have no interest in the job.

All such propositions from both the theist and the atheist have no basis in reason - and are all propositions based on faith. — Rank Amateur

And the point of this mutual faith based operation is to try to make reality smaller, within our grasp. Very understandable and very human, but...

Reality would actually be far more interesting, wonderous, spectacular, and inspiring if it is way to large, complex and sublime etc for us ever to be able to grasp.

Consider an example, if you will. Think of all the times you've heard the story about the couple who fell in love, were so excited to be married, but then got to know each other so well that it became boring, so they gave up and quit. Many couples struggle to keep the mystery going because it is the mystery, the unknown, the ignorance, which keeps the project alive. Once everything is known, once there is nothing new to learn, once you've seen it all before, been there and done all that, the dance can be over.

Maybe it's wiser to skip all the fantasy knowings and just let reality be vast and mysterious beyond comprehension? Maybe trying to make reality smaller is a mistake driven by fear?

I predict that John Bolton will be the next secretary of defence. — ssu

Interesting. Hadn't thought of that.