You parrott Trump's nonsense about a "Russia Hoax", unable to refute the facts I gave you. How is that an appeal to authority? Use of the term seems an appeal to an idiot.

As one of the few Trump supporters on this forum, you have the opportunity to show that a reasonable person could support Trump. But all you do is to repeat Trump's talking points, and deny facts when they're presented to you.

I've already shown you that the only "Russian hoax" was the one perpetrated by Trump. Understandably, you didn't respond, because deep down, you know the facts are not on your side.

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members. — Relativist

Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity. — NOS4A2

I'm impressed! You are actually admitting members of the Trump cult are stupid! We've gotten through to you!

The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues. — NOS4A2

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members.

He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself. — NOS4A2

There are no quotes that depict Joe telling a lie. Sure, he used the talking points for his political benefit, just as Trump used the NYPost story, and made absurd claims about Biden getting Shokin fired to help Hunter.

Re the Politico story, it adds only one minor fact: some unnamed White House spokesman said something that wasn't true by saying there was no informal encounter with Pozharskyi. Let's get this person fired for failing to seek the truth on the matter, or lying - whichever it was. So what?

It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story. — NOS4A2

Indeed, the letter was produced for political purposes, and it was used by Joe to dodge questions about the laptop - but he didn't tell a lie. Look at the transcript. . Hardly a unique practice by politicians. I acknowledged this long ago. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that everything in the letter was actually true. Here's a link to the letter. Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.

As I said several posts ago, there is absolutely nothing in the laptop that implicates Joe Biden of a crime or of doing anything contrary to the interests of the United States. The laptop was dirt, and was used as a basis for spreading false information about him - somehow, you overlook that point amidst your ranting about misinformation. It was mudslinging, irrelevant to Biden's qualifications to be President. You're just pissed that the campaign successfully dodged the mud. So please stop pretending to have some moral high ground.

The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it. — NOS4A2

Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.

Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it. — NOS4A2

You are not well informed.

Assange denying it was Russia doesn't make it so. The leak was traced to phishing email sent by the GRU, and were posted first by the Russian Intelligence persona of Guccifer 2.0, at DCLeaks, a website created by the GRU.

Shawn Henry testified to Rubio's committee that they'd determined the DNC hacks were by Russian Intelligence. 12 employees of the Internet Research Agency were indicted, GRU officer Yevgeny Prigoshin was indicted. He's not being pursued because he's dead.

The only hoax was Trump's fiction of a "Russia Hoax".

The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate. — NOS4A2

You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true at the time. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?

Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections..." — NOS4A2

What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.

You spend too much time reading right wing spin, and not enough time trying to distinguish fact from biased accusation.

I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact. — NOS4A2

Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.

We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. — NOS4A2

Biden has consistently said he never discussed business with Hunter or his associates, and his attendance at a dinner doesn't contradict this. Joe did dodge questions about the laptop, such as in the debate with Trump when he referred to the letter by former intelligence officers, but his comment was factual - even though it was misleading. Are you so naive as to think being misleading is a novel thing for political candidates?

Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money. — NOS4A2

This was public knowledge, not some revelation from the laptop. We're discussing the 2020 NY Post story about the laptop and the contents of the laptop, not your general opinion of Biden.

The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. — NOS4A2

Sure, there was stupidity in the handling of the story, including the way Giuliani gave exclusive access to only one right-wing outlet. The inability for other outlets to verify the information was a factor in the story not being reported widely. The other factor you overlook is Russia's history of assisting Trump, and Trump's taking maximum advantage of that assistance.

The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.

it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. — NOS4A2

None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.

This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud. — NOS4A2

Hunter's corruption was well known.

"Election interference"?! Activities BY a campaign can hardly be called "election interference". Campaigns sling mud, and campaigns try to minimize the impact of that mudslinging.

"Fraud"? Be specific as to who you're accusing of fraud. The laptop story was dirt on Hunter Biden that the Trump campaign tried to use against Joe by drawing false inferences from the contents. You lament the failure of this dirty campaign tactic to succeed. The worst action by Joe that it exposed was that he attended an informal dinner with a Burisma associate and that Joe was misleading when asked about it. That's it!

You clearly brush away Trump's public embrace of assistance by Russia in his 2016 campaign, and direct, intentional lies by Trump and members of his campaign. Your excuse: you dismiss the entirety of the events (including the very real election interference ny Russia) as "hoax", because Trump tells you so. Then you treat campaign efforts to minimize the impact of the the laptop as something insidious, and falsely claim it entailed election interference.

If we adhere to the idea of universal natural law and assume that what we understand about that law is valid and reflects necessary or universal invariances, then within that context, we can talk about physical impossibilities. But the caveat will always be 'given that the laws of nature are themselves invariant". — Janus

If naturalism is true, and there are laws of nature, I suggest the true natural laws would be invariant. The way they manifest might be contingent on local conditions. That's why I think its important to refer to laws of nature, as you have done, rather than the laws of physics- which are based on our current understanding, and subject to revision as we learn more.

I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of? — NOS4A2

You've conflated actions by social media organizations, the BIden campaign, and former intelligence officials.There's no evidence of any conspiracy, despite the misinformation spread by MAGA media and Congressmen.

Whether or not social media organizations should limit access to suspected disinformation is debatable. But the Biden campaign didn't tell anyone what to do.

I've already given you the facts about the former intelligence officers letter, but you choose to ignore the details.

Trump was spreading disinformation ABOUT the laptop,including false accusations that Biden's efforts to fire Shokin were related to the "revelations" on the laptop. Does this concern you? If not, why would it concern you that Biden tried to diminish the relevance?

I like to be as informed as possible. I read the NY Post story when it came out, and felt there was a sufficiently good chance the laptop contents were true, and felt it important to consider the implications if it were.The letter from the former intelligence officers indicated they didn't know if it was true, so it was a non-factor. The only thing I learned from the laptop materials was what a lowlife Hunter had been, and what a concerned father Joe was. There was nothing that indicated Joe had done anything wrong. I'm pretty confident that anyone who understood the full facts would have agreed. You haven't even pointed to anything that should be a concern to anyone, so I question your posturing about misinformation. It looks like you're simply upset that the right-wing spin on the laptop didn't dominate the public debate at the time. Sure, if those half-truths had been reported by all news outlets similarly to the spin by FOX, OANN, and NEWSMAX, it might have turned some fringe Biden voters off - but that would have been more a product of misinformation, not of full facts.

I would also raise that if physicalism is true, metaphysical possibility = physical possibility. — Lionino

100% agree.

Testimony has also confirmed, as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis, that the laptop was legit, contradicting what has been said by so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself. That’s some dirty dirt. — NOS4A2

The laptop was dirt on Hunter, and contained nothing that impugned Joe's integrity. That his campaign would seek to minimize the relevance of that dirt during the campaign should be expected. Similarly, one would expect the Trump campaign to do as much with this dirt as they could - and they did. Does greater access to dirt really lead to more informed voting, as you suggested?

Nothing the former intelligence officers said was false. They merely expressed a judgement, and acknowledged that they didn't know if it was legit or not.

Biden denied involvement with Hunter's business. You may choose to consider a dinner appearance as business involvement, and label this a lie, but it's a pretty innocuous involvement. Why should this affect anyone's vote? It seems disingenous for you to suggest it relevant, since you excuse thousands of falsehoods that have streamed from Trump - many of which are pertinent to his qualifications to be President.

The laptop contained one email that indicated Biden had met one Burisma executive. That's all it said, and there's been no evidence since then of it being anything more. There was, and is, no evidence of Joe taking any actions favorable to Burisma, before or after. It was well established that Hunter had been capitalizing on his name. The laptop was used as dirt, pure and simple.

What "involvement" are you referring to? What information relevant to the election was the public unaware of? The laptop was dirt.

Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. — NOS4A2

It would be interesting to discuss what was actually done, why it was done, and what mistakes (if any) were made. However, it contained no information relevant to the election - so the complaint seems vacuous.

Your lot censored the NY post in the lead up to an election because they were so scared of the truth. — NOS4A2

What "truth" was there to be afraid of? The NY Post article was available, and I read it at the time. It made Hunter look terrible, but he wasn't running.

I think the mistake is overthinking elections. — Mikie

My view is the exact opposite. Too many people underthink the consequences of their vote and who is elected.

But I agree with most of what you wrote.

I feel safe in predicting that Biden will again win the popular vote... But it remains to be seen if he can carry the swing states he needs to win. Biden's unpopularity may lead many to stay home rather than vote. Biden barely won some states in 2020, so it wouldn't take much of a shift.

What worries me more are those who believe it doesn't matter who wins, because both candidates are flawed. They may sit out, vote for a 3rd option, or vote to kick out the incumbent.

It’s a good thing contesting an election is part and parcel of democracy. At least they didn’t furiously change election laws in the lead up to the election underneath the noses of voters. — NOS4A2

Changing the law is part and parcel of democracy, just as is contesting elections through legal means. What's not part and parcel is trying to overturn an election through election fraud after all legal avenues have been exhausted.

It's not mere insufficient knowledge of neuroscience. It just doesn't seem possible to account for certain aspects of consciousness through natural means Qualia are the most glaring. We can envision how to program things like belief, deduction, and intentionality - but not the actual experience of pain, sadness, pleasure, etc.

GOP do not consider Trump a "proven loser" (70% believe he won in 2020), a majority are delighted Roe was overturned, and Trump's indictments just fire up the base. A conviction might hurt him, but I doubt one will occur in 2024.

On the plus side: Trump "only" has about 50% support among GOP. If the field narrows down to 2 (e.g. Trump vs Haley), early enough, there's a fair chance Trump won't get the nomination. Then, I agree, he'll run as a 3rd party and doom the election for the GOP.

At this point, it seems a majority of the GOP want him to be the candidate, and believe he will win for the 3rd time. Losing the case against Carroll didn't hurt him. What do you think will turn this around?

Your predicted SP-1 would run as 3rd party. You apparently predicted the GOP would be sensible.

what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

It's logically possible that abstract objects exist, but their existence is metaphysically impossible if physicalism is true.

In general one would judge as metaphysically possible, anything that is consistent with one's prior ontological commitments. If contradicted by ontological commitments, you'd judge it metaphysically impossible.

If you prefer to judge metaphysical possibility from a perspective that's devoid of ontological commitments, then metaphysical possibility = broadly logical possibility.

Ukraine is primarily the West's fault. Had Ukraine remained committed to neutrality, — Tzeentch

No, it's Russia's fault. Ukraine was neutral when Russia invaded in 2014. Russia had signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 (along with the US and UK), committing to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for their giving up the nukes. Independence and sovereignty gives them the right to see economic alliances. They were seeking such economic alliances with the West (seeking to join the EU), while remaining "non-bloc" (militarily neutral). Ukraine was driven toward military alignment with the West in response to Russian aggression. You're blaming the West for failing to appease Russia's aggression.

I don't think the Russians wanted to invade Ukraine at all. They did so because they felt they had no other option. If the US hadn't pressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine, this war could have been avoided entirely. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. Putin couldn't countenance a pro-West Ukraine. Ukraine has been moving toward the West since 2004, when the pro-Russian President (Yanukovych) lost to Yushchenko. Yushchenko began the push to join the EU and NATO, which has continued. Putin's invasion was inevitable.

I think there's a non-trivial chance that it wouldn't have happened under Trump — Tzeentch

Ukraine has been fighting against Russia's occupation of Crimea since 2014, a move Trump praised at the time, and actually parrotted Putin's assertions that Crimea is Russian. What makes you think Putin would have hesitated to attack Ukraine if Trump were still in office? Trump's isolationism, and criticism of NATO, would have been the best possible situation for Putin.

Deleted

The Biden administration has been an absolute dumpster fire. If Biden is the lesser of those two evils, it's only by a small margin. — Tzeentch

Any failings of Biden are related to one's judgments of policies he's implemented or failed to implement. Trump is a fundamental threat to our system of government.

The difference between a child who is a sore loser and an adult like Donald Trump or Kari Lake being a sore loser is that children can learn to stop doing it and overcome their emotional immaturity. — GRWelsh

Children grow out of it only because they aren't constantly surrounded by enablers. There are tens of millions of enablers for Trump and Lake. The Trump phenomenon is a consequence of some unfortunate elements in our society.

They're originalists when convenient. I don't think it will be convenient, in this case.

Regardless of who appointed them, the "Conservative" Justices embrace the principle of Originalism. Sedition seems moot; the 14th Amendment refers specifically to " insurrection or rebellion", and neither term is defined in law. So they should ask how these terms were used at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.

The events of 1/6 wouldn't constitute a rebellion, to the 14th Amendment framers, who's standard was based on the Civil War. But insurrection is in play. How was the term used in the 19th Century? The only detailed historical analysis I've seen is contained in the New Mexico decision that barred a County Commissioner from holding office because he participated in 1/6. The decision is here. On page 29, the court identifies how the term was used at the time. Here's an excerpt:

The term "insurrection", as understood by knowledgeable 19th century Americans and Section three's framers, referred to 1) assemblage of persons; 2) action to prevent the execution of one or more federal laws, 3) for a public purpose; through the use of violence, force, or intimidation by numbers....Section three's framers and 19th century Americans did not understand insurrection to require actual violence; intimidation by numbers sufficed.

Perhaps more historical analysis will identify more ambiguity, but if this analysis holds - I don't see how originalist justices can rationalize a decision contrary to their stated principles.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher.

Regardless, the mere fact that no one challenged his candidacy doesn't imply he was actually eligible to be President. Further, the mere fact one is ineligible to be President doesn't automatically mean the name can't be on a ballot, it just means they couldn't serve, if elected.

It was Colorado State Law that made Trump ineligible to be on a primary ballot.

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion? — NOS4A2

Because the language of the law does not use those terms.

No, Debs was convicted of sedition, not seditious conspiracy. Even though it wasn't parallel, let's assume Debs' case made him technically ineligible to serve as President. This just means a state with a law like Colorado's could have omitted him from the ballot (were there any?). The fact that no State did this has no bearing on applying the law in other cases.

Think about Reconstruction. If state courts were to decide what constituted an insurrection, and who was guilty of it, the southern states could say those who fought for the confederacy were not insurrectionists, and thus could hold office. — NOS4A2

That would never have survived SCOTUS review. The Confederate States had left the US, so attacks on them could not be considered insurrection against the US.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts.

The 14th doesn't say Congress has EXCLUSIVE power to pass legislation to enforce the ban. Similarly, Article I Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."; clearly that's not an exclusive power.

Trump's ban was a consequence of State law.SCOTUS doesn't have appellate jurisdiction over state law, except in the case where that law is deemed unconstitutional.

Congress has passed no law that applies, so SCOTUS would (in effect) be creating law in order to overturn Colorado's Supreme Court Ruling.

I'm not predicting SCOTUS will uphold the ban (I think it's unlikely); I'm just arguing the litigants had as much right to pursue their preferred outcome as did Trump's supporters (like Texas v Pennsylvania), in the many lawsuits to overturn the 2020 election. Don't you agree?

From a practical standpoint, 6 justices would have been needed to expedite. From a legal standpoint, the reason it's rare to expedite is because the appellate process helps flesh out complex legal issues. Of course, I see nothing complex about this issue. Ruling that a sitting President has blanket immunity would create the opportunity for a de facto dictatorship.

SCOTUS has ruled: they will not expedite. It will have to go through appeal.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. — NOS4A2

Yes, and courts determine what the law means. There is no law that defines what constitutes a rebellion or insurrection. Colorado violated neither the law nor constitution in their interpretation. It's possible SCOTUS will create a definition that has the effect of overturning the Colorado ruling, thus creating new law. If they do, it's game over. Is that what you're hoping for? SCOTUS creating law like this?

Most of us acknowledged Trump's legal rights to challenge the 2020 election in courts, so why can't you support the rights of states to challenge his eligibility using the same justice system?

Great points.

Further, it's not even clear to me what SCOTUS can do here. The Colorado Supreme Court ruling pertained specifically to Colorado law - which SCOTUS has no authority to overrule, unless they find something unconstitutional in the law or in the ruling.

[

Yes, it’s warranted in my opinion, especially given Biden’s lies about his son’s dealings, many of which occurred while Biden was present and in power. I guess he should not have lied. — NOS4A2

The only "lie" allegation I'm aware of is Joe saying he wasn't involved with Hunter's business, despite being put on speakerphone greeting Hunter and companions at business dinners. Am I missing something?

"Given that the stage has been set by previous impeachments, this is par for the course, anyways."

In the case of Trump's impeachments, there was probable cause: good evidence of crimes having been committed by the President. There's no evidence of a crime involving Joe. Hunter's been indicted for crimes that have nothing to do with Joe,. Beyond that, it's clear Hunter engaged in peddling the perception of influence. However, there's no evidence Joe WAS influenced. Even the ludicrous allegation about his firing of Shokin wouldn't be relevant, because it occurred prior to being President.

I don't care that the MAGA House wants to go on a fishing expedition, but this doesn't seem at all parallel to Trump's impeachments.