No, I’m quite sure he and his lawyers tried to contest the election. I’m not sure he did so fraudulently. The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. Maybe some evidence will drop in the future but here is nothing.

What it’s doing is criminalizing Trump’s beliefs and his legal counsel, so now the first amendment is thrown under the bus.

I guess the insurrection hoax can be put to bed. That was the crime people were told he committed, believed he committed, only to have it all fall apart more than once now. The charges aren’t even close.

They’ve moved on without any self-reflection. They’ve fallen back on the “overturning the results of the election” canard. “Contesting the election” sounds too legal so another string of The Narrative is chosen in its place because by now people are so used to hearing it.

Jack Smith admits he lied. He failed to turn over all evidence to Trump's legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that he had. Ouch.

Included in Production 3 is additional CCTV footage from The Mar-a-Lago Club that the Government obtained from the Trump Organization on May 9 and May 12, 2023, in response to a grand jury subpoena served on April 27. On July 27, as part of the preparation for the superseding indictment coming later that day and the discovery production for Defendant De Oliveira, the Government learned that this footage had not been processed and uploaded to the platform established for the defense to view the subpoenaed footage. The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.92.0_1.pdf

Not only that but they’ll have to prove the statements were false. Maybe we’ll finally get some thorough and unbiased investigations into the matter.

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse.

Every statement and action he has made during and since that election says that he believes the election was a sham. You haven’t quoted him saying otherwise; you have not provided the results of a lie detector test; nothing.

Now we’re on the road to criminalizing political speech because a man dared to doubt the results of an election.

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims.

More fake word crimes levied from a political DOJ towards the regime’s biggest opponent. What’s new?

No, that's not what mind-dependent means. Mind-dependent simply means that mind is comprehending/shaping/experiencing the reality in order for it to appear as it does (or in some constructions, for it to exist but then that gets into the schools of ontological and epistemological idealism). It does not mean that what is being comprehended is necessarily "the mind".

It does necessarily mean that what is being comprehended is the mind because the contents of the mind (like “conscious experience” or “phenomenal consciousness”) are necessarily mental.

This I don't get at all. Quite the opposite. Every object and thing I think about is dependent of my mind. Name one thing that is not comprehended by the mind?

The device you’re using to type those words. What sort of shape did you make of this device? What of it has changed and become of it since you comprehended it? Can you point to these changes?

What do you mean "then it is comprehending itself"? That doesn't seem like you are characterizing it correctly.

If it was comprehending anything that wasn’t mind it would be comprehending something that was independent of mind.

It's comprehending all the things that the mind comprehends. I don't get the question. All we know (literally) is what the mind has comprehended. How are you confused about that. Or how are you skeptical about that?

It’s a circular answer. And you could never point to, illustrate, or show me a picture of something the mind comprehends. So why do you believe it?

I do not get them, and I don’t know how one could. If mind-dependent objects are everything the mind is comprehending, then it is comprehending itself. It’s too circular for my own tastes. It perpetually raises the question: what is it the mind is comprehending? Again, no one could produce such an object.

I think you overshot their arguments and went right to incredulity. Implicitly direct realism presumes animals like humans have a god-like (near) perfect view of reality. Too many problems arise from this.

I've read their arguments but they cannot show me a single mind-dependent object. Hence my incredulity. Are you able to point to one without pointing to your own forehead?

A better explanation for me is that the idealist holds a naive view of his own biology (he cannot see his optical nerve, for instance), and so assumes that the observable parameters of biological arrangements cannot explain mental phenomenon.

I get the explanation, but my naive and common-sense understanding of the world prohibits me from following the arguments. I don’t know if I lack the brain power, or what, but I am unable to afford any reality to any one of the objects, substances, and things in their ontology. It may not be the case that they are arguing that world is wholly in their mind, but every object or substance they claim constitutes reality cannot be found anywhere else, which is suspiciously convenient.

My own common-sense, naive view prohibits me from following along with any of these arguments. I become stuck on what I find to be an unresolvable problems: the adjectives used here to describe the world— mind-dependent and qualitative—cannot be applied to anything in particular. If I were to apply them to anything in particular I’d have to find and point to things independent of my mind in order to do so.

What I mean is, If I were to ask the idealist to show me a mind-dependent and qualitative apple, and then observe his immediate actions, he could neither find nor produce one unless he went to a place where his mind was clearly absent, like the inside of a fridge or the fruit bowl in the kitchen. He’d need to go to places independent of his mind and find apples in order to prove their mind-dependence, which to me is contradictory.

So the very act of finding qualitative and mind-dependent objects proves their mind-independence, according to my common sense view. Ask the idealist to point to a mind-dependent sun, for instance. Why does he point away from his mind and towards something else? Is mind up there too, then? Doesn’t the fact that idealist points away from his mind and towards something else betray his own argument?

Why do we disagree on how to pluralize?

We pluralize nouns. The problem is Jack-in-the-box is a clause being used as a noun. It has a subject and predicate. It has two nouns in it. So I would pluralize both nouns for reasons of grammar. When in doubt just use whatever is easier to say and whichever combination sounds better, or avoid using the word altogether.

The concept of race is unable to furnish any valid information about any given person. The best one could assume from the phenotypes associated with race is perhaps what a person’s parents may have looked like, and even that is fraught with difficulty and often misleading.

But to make the assumption that since someone is of such-and-such a race, this can somehow explain such-and-such a condition, is racism in both the wide and narrow sense.

I’m speaking of people, not situations. The taxonomy of race pertains to human beings. Do you apply the concept to people or situations?

I didn’t like when he said he was going to ban certain vaping products. Have you ever applauded him here?

You use the concept of race to inform your worldview. For instance you speak of “racial differences”.

That "argument" is a political allegation unsupported by evidence. The irony is that there was abundant evidence of Trump's efforts to influence the DOJ. It's as if Trumpists think that was normal, and thus assume Biden is following suit.

Do you think the DOJ is an independent agency of the US government?

What did I write that someone with your species of race-thinking would object to?

If the suffix “ism” denotes a practice, system, or philosophy, it is not possible to see racism in an effect or social condition because neither have any beliefs nor adhere to any. A certain state of affairs may be the result of racism, but it cannot itself be racism. So in my view such a comprehensive view of racism just doesn’t work.

I also believe that if one adopts such a comprehensive view of racism he risks using racism to maintain it.

Before all else he must adopt a belief in the taxonomy of race and apply it to individual human beings in order to classify them under its rubric. If this taxonomy informs his worldview in this way he must at some level, from benign thoughts to overt actions, treat people differently on the basis of this one specious classification. This is the fundamentals racism.

Race can only ever serve as a vehicle of fallacious assumptions, anyways. It cannot inform us about an individual or the life she leads. It can only ever benefit the user, not because it provides him with information about people, but because it provides him with a way out, a means to escape learning about someone from the source, which is the only means to acquire understanding of others. So I’d say ditch race and racism altogether.

No, they didn’t benefit from slavery, and no one suggested such a thing. But it is true that “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit” as the Florida education board wrote in their guide.

Nah. He was whistling to racists.

Then why are your ears ringing?

As the scholar said, the idea was to point out that enslaved Africans proved resilient, resourceful, and adaptive both while enslaved and after. Do you think this is true?

What do you think his motive is?

He was asked a question, as is evident from the video.

I think it’s a stretch to that because “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit”, that they benefited from slavery as a whole. Clearly that’s not what they were saying. The question should be whether it is true or false.

Desantis himself reiterated the claim and basically said you’ll have to talk to the scholars or education board about that. In the video below the scholar (a black man) said it was true.

The argument is that Biden’s DOJ is benefitting Biden while trying to ruin his political opponent. That’s not whataboutism, I’m afraid, nor does it imply (let alone was it argued) that one exonerates the other.

Unfortunately you can only push that stuff aside and avoid the argument for so long because even the appearance of any conflict of interest puts the whole system itself into doubt, which is the very reason many people don't trust any of these allegations. If you don't care that the justice system is two-tiered, just say it, move on, and continue to nod your head with whatever Biden's justice department tells you is the case.

It’s Biden’s DOJ. The attorney general reports directly to the president. The attorney general is on Biden’s cabinet, and advises Biden. His DOJ is currently indicting his political opponent in more than one frivolous case. It’s the same DOJ that allegedly slow-walked, obstructed, and ignored IRS investigations into Biden’s criminal son. As a result, Biden’s son won’t have to pay taxes on more than $400,000 in unreported Ukrainian income for the years Biden was vice president. A slow-walk, a plea deal; they resolved what should have been a federal criminal case at the same time the charges were filed in court. Imagine if that was anyone else.

Biden has been a lying, partisan, career politician for half a century. Hell, he’s been holding on to classified documents from the 70s with zero repercussions.

That being said, I think Biden is only a sock puppet in all this. He is not running the country.

The context surrounding the statutes cited in the target letter is unclear, and their inclusion in the letter doesn't necessarily mean Trump will be charged with related counts or that an indictment would be limited to only those three statutes.

What did you think of Trump praising Xi Jinping?

I thought it was a good move. If you alienate someone from the world stage, as Biden likes to do, you eliminate any room for negotiations or improvement. The result is war.

It will be interesting to see what this latest indictment is for. If it’s anything like the rest, it’s some deep-state neocon piffle, or some obscure and archaic law once used to jail dissidents back at the turn of the 20th century. They probably found something he said that can be misconstrued by deep-state sophists as criminal or untoward activity, some word-crime, like every other complaint about Trump that has hitherto existed.

Meanwhile, Biden is trying to jail his political opponents. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure the lawsuits were a good idea because everything they did to alter how elections were ran was done legally at the legislative level, with the collusion of those in power. The people should have contested the election en masse but the propaganda was by then too thick.

Maybe in that reality warp you speak of such an act is disturbing, but if beneath the noses of American voters shadowy and conspiratorial groups with vast sums of dark money were changing how elections fundamentally operate, contesting it was the right thing to do.

I knew they were wrong from the get go. But you believed it.

There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust.

None of this would turn out to be true, but the reality warp you speak of was so severe and traumatizing for some that it has had its immediate effects in reality. There was a spate of fake hate crimes, for example, most notably the case of Jussie Smollette, where people tried to exploit the moral panic for their own gain. It worked, however briefly, because some people refuse to come to their senses.

I remember when over 50 democrats refused to attend Trump’s inauguration, with people like John Lewis calling him illegitimate because something something Russia. That was unprecedented, but there was no psychoanalysis of his supporters. It was all above board. Or when mass worldwide protests occurred during Trump’s inauguration, even right outside of it, to the point where supporters were told by police not to wear their hats for fear of a beat down. In retrospect I’m glad Trump didn’t do what Biden did, which was ban the public from attending and use the US military to enforce a perimeter, because that’s what fascism is.

Questioning the results of a rigged election is small potatoes to the greatest feat of election denialism ever, which was the proliferation of the Russia hoax. This conspiracy theory reached the highest levels of the establishment and the US government. They spied on an American political campaign and obstructed the winner throughout most of his term. This reality warp you speak of is still persisting.

Are you yourself controlled by someone else’s personal morality? I ask because all this talk of consequences and aggregate impacts and people’s feelings leads me to believe you’re approaching morality from the perspective of consequentialism. I think it is the consequentialism that leads you to believe, cynically, that personal moralities tend to (and intend to) control others socially.

I cannot agree and find your analysis specious because there are people who do not approach morality from the perspective of consequentialism. They wish to act right no matter the fee-fees of some person, with no care for the consequences or social costs, and with no desire or goal of controlling others.

If you want to obsequiously serve another’s personal morality, be my guest, but at some point you might have to live according to your own moral code or you won’t be able to live with yourself.

The bias, background, politics, wealth, or any other factor of a reporter or news outlet doesn’t matter. To say otherwise is the genetic fallacy. Even the National Enquirer can break news.

It matters whether it is true or false; it matters if it contains all relevant information or lies by omission; it matters if it is pertinent or a waste of time.

You may feel discouraged by the moral criticism, advice, and the arguments of others, but the feelings you feel are your own. Do you feel that way because you fear the consequences? Or is it because your conscience is telling you something?

Yes, collective moralities tend to create an environment hostile to certain behaviors. I don’t think a personal morality does. My neighbor hates dogs, for example, so naturally she doesn’t like mine. I don’t feel discouraged owning a dog. To each their own. If everyone in town hated dogs, I would feel discouraged, and probably wouldn’t own a dog.

It’s always burdens and never boons. It’s always suffering but never pleasure. It’s always entropy but never negentropy or free energy. How come anti-natalists never include, and even avoid, opposing events in their screeds?

One who saw coercion as immoral, and by coercion, I mean an unbiased interpretation, and refused to engage in it for the most part, could avoid it, although it'd be very unusual. I'm not arguing against that.

However, surely, your personal moral code involves standing up against injustice? It involves invoking consequences against others for their actions? How can your moral code just be to act morally and ignore the world around you, save for "leading by example"? How is that possible.

“Standing up against injustice”. Do you mean retribution? I do believe in retribution. One has to be just. What that has to do with social control, I’m not sure. You’re not encouraging or discouraging anything with retribution. You’re satisfying a desire for justice.

Frankly, it’s all a little weird for me to suspect that following one’s own conscience has the effect of encouraging and discouraging others, as if we’re training animals. It sounds to me more of an admission of guilt than a statement of fact.