Like Trump you say something then say something else to modify it. As if you did not say what you said and said something else all along. And like Trump you attempt to hide behind your words when your actions tell a different story.

Complete lies. You’re going to pretend you know what I meant more than I do, and this after you deliberately doctor my quotes to suit your little narrative.

Not only that, but removing people from the ballot is the modus operandi of the two-party duopoly. Look how the DNC railroaded Bernie or RFK Jr.

We’ve seen them use lawfare to get the greens off the ballot in different states.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voting-north-carolina-raleigh-48f1e61c1988c7083edcdc7bb1eace4a

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/19/texas-democrats-green-party-november/

Or “No Labels” candidates.

https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/30/politics/arizona-democrats-sue-no-labels/index.html

They did it to Ralph Nader.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Nader_v._Democratic_National_Committee

The GOP does it too, for instance with the Libertarian Party candidates.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/05/Republicans-libertarians-ballot-remove/

“Democracy” means for them the grip of the Party on the theater of power. Remember this as they invoke “Our Democracy”, because by “Our”, they don’t mean you and me, they mean them.

You approve of assasinations of other countries generals, yet you have disdain for warmongers? Is that right?

Yes, I approved of that assassination. It arguably averted war.

If you seek argument for the sake of your education and growth then you do not seek argument for the sake of argument. Except it is evident that you actually do argue for the sake of arguing. It is then evident that what you do is pointless. Round and round.

I said I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing. Why do you refuse to quote what I say, stopping mid sentence for whatever reason, and pretend I said something else? We know why: you're a sophist.

Yes, I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing.

My compulsive defense of Trump correlates well with my opposition to his enemies.

Did you approve of Trump authorizing the killing of Suleimani? Actions like that are straight out of the neocon playbook. It led to an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. air base. No soldiers were killed, but if some had been, we might have been in a shooting war.

Yes I did. The prospect of war was one of the reasons Bush refused to do it. It turns out he was wrong.

The question is: to what end? If the end is arguing for the sake of arguing, then there can be no advance, just endless argument.

It's a method. The end is one's own education and growth, which ought to be endless.

But this can be argued about Biden too. Do you listen to conservative talk radio or read conservative newspapers editorials — to say nothing of cable news, Twitter, Rumble, podcasts, etc. You’d think the fucking world is ending before of some senile figurehead in the White House. So what? Of course it’s overblown, hyperbolic, sensationalized.

Yes, the left does it too. No question. Even if one believes it’s more extreme on the left, why let that blind us to the reality that it’s tribalism all around?

No, I don’t listen to that shit, nor do I watch any television. My propaganda diet is limited to what pops up on my X feed. But I sometimes see the neocons, warmongers, and Bushites in The Atlantic warning of a Trumpian future and find I am in good company. I’m glad the grand ol party has imploded and the neocons are left without a ship to float on. But that they’ve shifted their support to Biden is quite telling, in my opinion.

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch.

That is shallow, frivolous, and unphilosophical. It is the reason why Plato reserves the practice of philosophy for those who are mature enough to approach it seriously. Argument for argument's sake is for sophists and children.

How does one advance his thinking if he refuses to subject his beliefs to the grindstone of argument? He cannot. You become a victim of orthodoxy, a state reserved for dogmatists and religious acolytes—perpetual children. In any case, my rhetoric isn't intended to persuade others or used in the furtherance of some other ploy.

Sophists also overestimated the power of words. It's a shame Plato never dispelled that myth from the get go or Socrates may not have been put to death.

This is a good example of the problem. If your intuitions are reflected in your arguments then your inability to see when and how your arguments have failed is the result of arguing for the sake of arguing. It is as if you want to play chess and think that you have not lost when checkmated because you continue to move pieces around.

Because you do not take works and arguments seriously you are not taken seriously.

I don't care if I'm taken seriously.

I just can't be bothered to care about his moral life or what comes out of his mouth. What I oppose is the moral panic created in his name. His reactionary opposition, especially of the neocon and establishment variety, have created a folk devil the likes of which we have never seen, and they're sending us directly into tyranny in order to combat it. I'm baffled by people wedding themselves to such a cabal, but so it is and here we are.

I enjoy it. I seek argument for its own sake. I get to test my intuitions against some fairly heavy criticism, and so far so good. If I wanted consensus and adulation I'd join Truth Social.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion?

A man was arrested early Tuesday after he broke into the Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opened fire inside the building, state police said in a news release.

The preliminary investigation “confirmed a high probability” that the incident is not connected to “recent threats against the Colorado Supreme Court Justices,” the Colorado State Patrol said.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html

Benkei’s analysis fails the moment it is compared to reality.

I didn’t even know who he was. I just recognized his X post occupying someone else’s head. But according to his page he’s a legal analyst on MSNBC, which really isn’t known for fairness and accuracy. And his grift is anti-Trumpism, as far as I can tell. His livelihood depends on an empty head’s thirst for that sweet sweet Trump talk. According to Chomsky’s propaganda model the media employ these kinds of “experts” all the time, but given his career as a federal prosecutor it’s clear he was bred to service power and promote the official line.

Yes, these are physical in origin too. Sherlock Holmes does not reside in a separate subspace or as a separate material from matter and/or energy. It was created by the physical brain of Arthur Conan Doyle. It was then written with physical ink on physical paper. Printed by a physical machine, and read by physical eyes and brains.

The grammar is doing the heavy lifting. The grammar states that the noun represents a person, place, or thing, and apparently this is enough to conclude that this noun refers to something extant. But because they cannot find it or point to it, it must be non-physical. It’s quite a common methodology, but in the end it’s talking about words like “Sherlock Holmes”, which the last time I checked are physical.

I prefer it because “physical” is one of the few descriptions of being that is harmonious with the sensual evidence. One doesn’t even need an argument to come to accept it. Everything else is discordant and muddled.

You can literally watch the propaganda as it move from one vector to the other.

Not an original thought among them.

No offense, but my eyes just glaze over when I watch you take everything at face value and repeat it. I just lose interest. Your facts are appeals to authority. Deep down you know how obsequious it is.

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

Now we get to watch in real time as they interfere so egregiously in the election that it puts a few Russian Facebook ads to shame. This steal is so brazen that it ought to make Putin blush. But they’ve only exposed themselves in the most stupid fashion. They trod all over everything they’ve claimed to hold so sacred. The Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, now the insurrection hoax, reveal themselves to be little more than a Potemkin village so their base can feel better about themselves as their Obergruppenführers rip apart whatever was left of their country. It’s beautiful to watch.

It all reads like an exercise in destroying oneself and leaving an abomination in its place. That’s a big nope for me.

This is New York Attorney General Letitia James’ star witness.

"NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s onetime personal lawyer and fixer, says he unwittingly passed along to his attorney bogus artificial intelligence-generated legal case citations he got online before they were submitted to a judge.

Cohen made the admission in a court filing unsealed Friday in Manhattan federal court after a judge earlier this month asked a lawyer to explain how court rulings that do not exist were cited in a motion submitted on Cohen’s behalf. Judge Jesse Furman had also asked what role, if any, Cohen played in drafting the motion.

The AI-generated cases were cited as part of written arguments attorney David M. Schwartz made to try to bring an early end to Cohen’s court supervision after he served more than a year behind bars. Cohen had pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax evasion, campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, saying Trump directed him to arrange the payment of hush money to a porn actor and to a former Playboy model to fend off damage to his 2016 presidential bid."

https://apnews.com/article/michael-cohen-donald-trump-artificial-intelligence-777ace9cc34aa0e56398fd47a1d6b420

Whether Trump has engaged in insurrection has already been decided by the senate. Acquitted. And the plain language of the constitution tells us what an officer is, those who have previously taken the oath to support the constitution. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see these charades tried in the Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court is wrong.

The 14th amendment applies to those listed who engaged in insurrection, neither of which is true in Trump's case. You're reading into something that just isn't there.

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

Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity.

He was acquitted of insurrection by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. He cannot be removed from office and disqualified to enjoy any Office of Honor. You and the Dems in the Colorado Supreme Court are denying this…for what reasons again?

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

He was acquitted. So he is not liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

They're wrong.

I didn't realise that the Senate was the ultimate authority and final arbiter on the matter.

It says right there in the constitution.

They're not her own processes.

Well, she's certainly not following the constitution, or else she would not have violated anyone's rights.

It mentions "officer of the United States" and the President is an officer of the United States.

There is no indication the president is considered an Officer in the constitution. He is the Commander in Chief. The constitution says he appoints officers. The wording of the 14th insurrection clause clearly points to those who take the oath under Article 6. The president takes a different oath. Everyone else takes a different oath, and only their oath adopts the wording found in Article 6 and the 14th.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

Then they do so against the constitution. Senate has already acquitted him of such charges.

Under Maine law it is the Secretary of State who must make any initial rulings on a candidates eligibility. She is simply following the established legal process. The next step is for an appeal to be made to the Superior Court.

She's following her own process, to be sure, and it's marred by political bias and anti-Trumpism.

He is eligible under Article II Section 1, which explicitly uses the word "president". The 14th doesn't mention presidents. Second, there is no indication of any insurrection, or that he engaged in it. The Senate acquitted him of such charges long ago. Lastly, this lady isn't a lawyer and used youtube videos for her case. It's just tragic nonsense all around.

If that's what you want to call contesting an election, that's fine, but then it all comes off as bogus as they illegally prevent a legitimate campaign, disenfranchise voters, violate due process and other rights.

No, I wouldn't doubt it. The "tongue-in-cheek" attitude on such a grave and unprecedented matter gives more evidence to the malice and delusion of their intention. They don't like that Trump contested the election, that much is clear.

Oh, he said "I won this election". Therefor he says and believes he was elected to the office of the President twice, therefor he should be kept off the ballot. Pretzel logic.

But the constitution also says:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did Trump say somewhere he was elected to the office of president?

I’m afraid Trump was not sworn in, so the notion is ridiculous, though I can see how such pretzel logic will work wonders on pretzel-shaped brains.

It just goes to show the lengths they are willing to go and the contortions they are willing to commit themselves to in order to disguise their malfeasance. The sad part is they are abusing their power, disenfranchising voters, corrupting their office, and throwing doubt on what they have always claimed were free and fair elections.

They really said that Trump believes he won the election and if that were true, which they argue it's not, then he's ineligible because he's won twice. It’s just a troll at this point for their foamy-mouthed base.

They must be pretty frightened to go to such lengths to keep their opponent off the ballot. The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues.

So this is just begging the question.

Well no, I haven’t assumed any conclusion in any premise. I merely observe what is there and derive my conclusion from those grounds. What I cannot observe are the non-physical aspects of any object I’ve ever come into contact with, in direct contradiction to the claims of those who do.

Are abstract qualities physical? If not, are they real?

Abstract terms are certainly real. But it cannot be shown they refer to anything real, physical, or unreal and non-physical.

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.

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.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/05/hunter-joe-biden-business-testimony-00125056

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

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.

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

Their reasons for the letter was to give a talking point to Biden, to help him whim the election as Morell stated. That’s a far cry from the reasons stated in the letter itself.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

Dualists claim that humans are a collection of physical and non-physical (mental) stuff. The term "biology" is used to refer to the physical stuff and the term "consciousness" is used to refer to the non-physical (mental) stuff. To say that a human is conscious is to say that it has this non-physical (mental) stuff.

Whereas materialists claim that humans are a collection of physical stuff alone and that the term "consciousness" refers to some subsection of that physical stuff. To say that a human is conscious is to say that it has this subsection of that physical stuff.

I’m just asking what the word “consciousness” refers to. I have to Imagine a string going from the word to what it is in the world the word refers to. The dualist would have nowhere to put it because it would either attach to some biology, or nothing. Non-physical stuff is just a roundabout way of saying “nothing”, in my view, because nothing indicates such stuff exists.

Yes, if. But either way, there undoubtedly seems to me a hard problem, hence the existence of substantial contemporary philosophical literature on the nature of consciousness and of substance and property dualism. So either it is the case that consciousness is a physical thing, but significantly more complex than every other physical thing in the universe, or it isn't a physical thing.

Or it isn’t a thing at all. Maybe it’s an abstract term denoting abstract qualities of physical things, particularity conscious organisms.

I don't think it's circular. If you asked me what "physiology" describes, the answer is physiology.

"Physiology" isn't an adjective. "Physical" is an adjective, and physical physicalness is circular.

What does physiology apply to? The question doesn't make sense. Physiology is just its own thing. Similarly, if dualism is correct then consciousness is just its own thing.

Physiology applies to an organism and the way it functions. Consciousness applies to what?

There's certainly something peculiar about consciousness given that a "hard" problem of consciousness is even considered. We don't consider a "hard" problem of electricity or water after all. Of course, that might just be because consciousness is significantly more complicated than every other natural phenomenon in the universe. Or it might be because consciousness really is non-natural and that there really is a "hard" problem.

There is no hard problem if the term "conscious" describes the concrete. It brings us back to the easy problems. But lifting the term from the concrete and applying it to the abstract leads the dualist directly into hard problems, probably because there is nothing to examine under under its own premise.