Unaware of this case.
— creativesoul

Assange. — Isaac

Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac


IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION
— creativesoul

No. It's the result of exactly the right amount of government legislation to achieve that state of affairs. — Isaac

American elections are expensive. We agree there. I'm not seeing the relevance that the above has to that agreement.

:brow:

THIS WORLD

The one where the government are actively instructing social media platforms on what content to ban? — Isaac

Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption.

The one where a journalist is currently facing inhumane imprisonment for his media coverage? — Isaac

Unaware of this case.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac

IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans. — baker

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!!

Let us grant that the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood was Trump's; still the belief of others cannot be based simply on that. The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

Trump was outspoken about these things long before the election. He put that idea into the public sphere when doing so. He openly claimed that the only way he would lose the 2020 election would be if it was "rigged". Everyone knowing about the DNC's simultaneous abject failure to provide the people with a free and fair election reminded everyone of the possibility. The Assange leak was shocking in that what everyone already suspected became undeniable.

He fostered, fomented, and perpetuated the very idea successfully partly as a result of recent history.

You're an avid reader. Read for yourself. It's not too long. Very plainly stated.

Liberals — Streetlight

You had me entirely captivated by your wry wit...

...all the way up to there...

What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest.
— creativesoul

Well, yeah, but that opportunity has already been headed off by having such a high threshold of expensive and tightly regulated media coverage required to even stand a chance of being elected. — Isaac

There is no "tightly regulated media coverage" of an American election. Elections are most certainly expensive, but that fact is not due to an inherent flaw in the American system of government.

It's another of those systematic failures.

To quite the contrary, that fact(that American elections are expensive) counts as prima facie evidence that the rules to safeguard the country against government bribery have been broken. If those rules were enacted they would serve their purpose to prevent wealthy private citizens from rewarding the lawmakers for writing laws that would ensure the wealthy donors made even more money while knowingly quantifiably injuring huge swathes of American citizens.

Emoluments. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest.

The system guards against government bribery; the accumulation of against excessive power in too few hands; inadequate representation; abuse of power; and usurpation of the people's power to freely choose between individuals who have what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans in mind during any and all deliberation/discussion about potential bills(legislation) or any other potential government action effected/affected the American people.

When preventative safety measures deliberately built into the system are blatantly ignored, it is not a flaw inherent to the system if the neglection of the rule results in exactly what the rule guards against.

The sheer volume of people whom a national politician needs to persuade means that both finance and media are absolutely essential.

How elections are currently funded goes against the system's safeguards mentioned heretofore. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest. Emoluments.

Shedding light on these failures of governmental implementation is crucial, but you asked for a mechanism...

Sanders was the best chance I've seen in my lifetime...

Mechanism?

I do not know. All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice.

...the trick is to emigrate with one's stash before the guillotines are activated. — unenlightened

Wisdom. Who would take such a sap as I?

:brow:

I'm not sure if all the problems with democracy are fixable, but I can't think of a better general system of actual governance. — Isaac

I'm impressed by American democracy.

American democracy is by it's very design, a republic with democratic tradition. It is a representative form of government that is remarkably different than a pure democracy in that rather than majority rule, the people choose from a selection of candidates, and those elected official's are responsible for acting on behalf of the country.

It was of the utmost importance to the framers to take intentional measures to ensure that they prevented too much power from being in too few hands. We can see that throughout the system.

Elected officials have certain duties and responsibilities bestowed upon them by design which help to prevent any accumulation of power. It is clear. It is plain. It is quite easily understood. No magic tricks. No doublespeak.

Emoluments clause, and how a campaign for office is to be funded and subsequently enacted.

There are some very clear rules being broken by different elected public officials across the spectrum. Breaking them has somehow and in some way become the norm. The emoluments clause has been being broken by countless elected officials, president notwithstanding for decades. Divesting one from one's own financial interests is not just a suggestion. It's not just an unspoken norm. The emoluments clause is codified. It remains an indispensable component of a carefully articulated system of checks and balances. Breaking it amounts to improper implementation, to put it mildly. The framers included it as a means to eliminate the conflicts of interest between the elected official's best interest when and if it is contrary to the overwhelming majority's.

Breaking it has been a secret kept out in the open. Most Americans already believe that there is a fair enough amount of monetary corruption influencing their elected officials. Most Americans believe it's some unspoken norm for a public official to seek office as the primary source of income. Most Americans believe it's the norm for public officials to enrich themselves as a result of being an elected official. Most Americans believe that elected officials make campaign promises that they do not intend uon keeping. They accept these as an incontrovertible fact; as if nothing can be done. It's not that way at all.

Something can be.

A vote is just one of many means by which we can influence society. Getting someone more amenable to our objectives in power is a very, very small part of politics.

Getting someone more amenable to our objectives is THE issue at hand as best I can tell. I

A system is only as good as it's implementation. It's not the system that's broken. It's the implemenation.
— creativesoul

I don't think the former supports the latter. That a system is only as good as its implementation means that a system which is failing might not be broken (only badly implemented) but it does not show that it is not broken (only badly implemented). — Isaac

Well, that's not supposed to be an argument. Rather, just stating the facts as I understand them. In order to know if the failure is inherent to the system or the implementation thereof we need to understand the system first in order to know whether or not it's being implemented properly.

It's not. In fact the sheer volume of revolutionary writings that very clearly show that the founders very well understood the danger that "pure capitalists" posed to the country by virtue of being loyal only to profit, and not to country or countryman(their words). Add to this the emoluments clause, the strict limit upon an individual's campaign contribution, the separation of powers, and well, an originalist interpretation could not escape the conclusion that there have been a number of direct violations against the constitution. The end result???

The best government money can buy.

I'm not sure if all the problems with democracy are fixable, but I can't think of a better general system of actual governance. A vote is just one of many means by which we can influence society. Getting someone more amenable to our objectives in power is a very, very small part of politics.

My objection here is over when the soap opera around who is in power is allowed to detract from those other, more important aspects of politics.

Indeed, the political theatre desensitizes... Shock sells. Intentional exaggeration for the purpose of selling something mundane, if done enough, causes harm. Boys and wolves come to mind...

...'the democratic process' is a complex mechanism which has virtually nothing to do with any means by which people can promote the betterment of their communities... — Isaac

A system is only as good as it's implementation. It's not the system that's broken. It's the implemenation.

First rule of public service:Provide a service to the public. What the US government has managed to provide to those with the ability to pledge huge sums of money to elected officials is nothing short of legalized government bribery. That bribe buys a transfer of the power over American citizens that elected officials bear to individuals who are not elected and whose interests are in direct conflict with the peoples'. That is a horrible public disservice.

Actual policies, however, are influenced by corporate sponsors and can be stalled, repealed or rendered toothless as required. — Isaac

Yup.

Antitrust laws - toothless. IRS enforcement capabilities - toothless. Conflict of interest concerns - toothless. Consumer protection agency - toothless. EPA - toothless. Etc.

In The States there are policies that are actually written by those who are working on the behalf of such corporations. That is to have tremendous power over a people that have not consented and whose interest is in direct conflict with the aims of the parties involved. That power has been usurped from the people and sold to those who do not act with the people's best interest in mind!


The monetary corruption pervading American government has reached levels of unsustainability.

These are some of the things that paved the way for Jan.6 to even be able to happen. These sorts of things are what underwrite the common belief that politicians cannot be trusted, or that the government is the problem, etc. Justified distrust in the government to do the right thing for the American people! In a representative form of government, that's a big problem!

...there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle. Even picking up trash in the neighborhood accomplishes more. — Xtrix

Do you know what the hearings have shed light upon thus far?

...this commission. Another chance for ratings... — Xtrix

It's quite disheartening for me to see Americans have such an attitude about such an important proceeding.

There were a group of elected officials and their allies who deliberately plotted and carefully planned a complex quasi-legal method for overturning a free and fair election. These people also set out to convince all their supporters that it needed to be done as a result of the election being stolen. Neither of those things were true, because the election was not stolen. They all knew the election was not stolen.



Do you understand the seriousness and the future implications of all that?

Conspiracy to defraud The United States(the big lie). Seditious conspiracy(based upon the big lie). The big lie also has been used to foment the idea that our elections are not secure enough, and thus that something needs to be done to ensure free and fair elections. That's yet another conspiracy to defraud The United States. The 2020 election was the most secure closely monitored election in our history. Those elected officials peddling the falsehood already know that. Voting laws have been under constant attack and decimated since, making it much harder for less privileged people to vote. They've used the big lie as support for those changes, and continue to do so.

No.

We are facing very serious novel threats from within the government itself. The president of the United States did nothing to protect the capital building and it's inhabitants!!! The planned insurrection involved congresspeople as well!!! Many, if not most of those still hold office!!! Allowing the public to know this information is not about ratings. It's about putting a stop to this shit while we still can!!!

It's about shedding light on a topic(Jan.6) that the involved parties were trying to ignore and basically sweep under the rug immediately afterwards. From my vantage point, there are quite a few elected officials and citizens involved, and not just those who breached the building. It is a crime to know about a planned attempt at an insurrection and not report it to the proper authorities. There was a concerted effort to foment doubt about the integrity of the election, and there is now a concerted effort to convince the public that the commission is a partisan witch hunt about ratings. This narrative is being fostered by those who are guilty of seditious conspiracy, fraud, and doing everything based upon ratings.

:angry:

The judge talked about politicians choosing personal interest over country's, and pointed to the fact that they would not admit to having done so, perhaps even believing that they had not made such a choice.<-----that's a huge problem! What's best for the country is what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Neither party has done what's best for Americans(particularly poor and working class) for at least 45 years. That paved the way for Trump, for it greatly increased the distrust of government that Reagan began fomenting in the 70's.

The clear and present danger was about the attempt to overturn a free and fair election and the openly espoused plan to make a concerted attempt to do so in the future based upon legal and historical precedent. It failed in 2021, but some are actively putting in place all the pieces necessary to succeed in the future, should the circumstamces arise to do so.

There is not a single bit of evidence the election was improper. — Jackson

Agreed.

So, Trump supporters' belief that the election was stolen is not based upon evidence. What grounds their belief? What is such belief based upon?

I submit to you that such belief was based purely upon the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood. They took Trump at his word.

If then, these people are presented with all the relevant facts, and they remain convinced that Trump won and the election was stolen, then we've got a very serious problem on our hands. Such belief is on par with the kind of religious faith that was discussed earlier in the thread.

Trump supporters' doubt about the legitimacy of the 202 American presidential election is/was not based upon the motives you've proposed are the officials'.
— creativesoul

Same... — Jackson

Do you agree?

Doubt in the legitimacy of the government, based upon what?
— creativesoul

Based on they want power and want to delegitimize all existing norms. — Jackson

Trump supporters' doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 American presidential election are not based upon the motives you've proposed.

It's worth watching in it's entirety. It's not the same old theme...

What evidence supports that belief?

a dangerous cult of personality. — schopenhauer1

Indeed. Living Color's song has been revisited by myself several times in the past few years. The lyrics are spot on. Almost prescient...

Have you already seen this video in it's enitrety?

Yes. Trump and his allies have and are continuing to foment doubt in the legitimacy of the election results. Their supporters believe that Trump won.

What grounds the belief that Trump won?

Then we can examine the specific beliefs that ground the doubt regarding the legitimacy of the election.

Specific beliefs that are commonly held by Trump supporters that have been fomented by Trump and his allies that have resulted in an increase in doubting the legitimacy of the election results. Then we can look at what beliefs that doubt is founded upon.

I'm looking for an explanation consisting of more philosophically interesting substance. Not political speech.

Doubt in the legitimacy of the government, based upon what?

Be nice for you to unpack that. Doubt of what, based upon what? That's the philosophically interesting approach, keeping in line with the OP's topic.

Since doubt has been invoked...

Doubting 'X' is doubting the truth of X. When one doubts 'X', one holds some belief or other(s) that ground(s) the doubt. Otherwise, the skepticism is groundless and/or unwarranted. Groundless skepticism is unacceptable. Radical skepticism is traditionally based upon doubting that we can be certain of and/or know anything at all, which is in and of itself - untenable - for if it is consistently applied it would undermine itself when so applied. On my view, radical skepticism is akin to overcorrecting one's front steering wheel when the rear of the vehicle breaks loose and begins to come around towards the front. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot know some things, that we cannot know anything.


The basic takeaway...

All doubt is belief-based. The pre-existing belief(s) held as relevant to X by the individual 'stands in the way' of the individual's certainty. A fine example of this is shown by the overwhelming majority of Americans not trusting that the country is heading in the right direction, by virtue of not trusting the truthfulness of elected officials, and most recently, not trusting the very institutions of American government.

The more significant idea I've been exploring is that it makes no sense to speak of knowing something that one is not certain of or believing something one does not feel certain of. To the extent that one is uncertain one does not know, and to the extent to which does not feel certain one does not believe, but rather doubts. — Janus

I get what you're saying here, but when attempting to parse belief and knowledge in terms of being certain and not, we're missing the key elements that separate belief and knowledge. Truth and/or justification/warrant. Knowledge and belief are not analogous with being certain and not. That comparison fails in all the most important respects.

I would not have any issue with someone saying that they feel certain that God exists but cannot be certain, if that means they strongly believe God exists but cannot be absolutely certain of it, especially if that person has a recent newly acquired personal standard of warrant(adequate/sufficient reason to believe) that demands verifiability, due to having serious doubts raised concerning other accompanying beliefs about God.

Oh...

Glad you like your new place. I'm with you all the way when it comes to preferring being more on the land than in the city or suburbs. Luckily, we live on an acre, so it's not so bad as the quarter acre carefully designed plots with fences between that are common nowadays. Twenty or fifty or a hundred acres would be better though!

You con fuse together "certainty" and "truth"... — Banno

All instances of being certain... ...are instances of knowing the truth. — Janus

All instances of being certain... ...are instances of knowing the truth. — Janus

That's what your notion of certainty boils down to.

I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth — Janus

That's when you hung yourself.

If that were true, it would be impossible for anyone to be certain that "God exists" is true.
— creativesoul

it is impossible to be certain of that... — Janus

Hundreds of millions of people are certain of that.

...do you disagree that I can be certain that 2+2=4. that the Earth is roughly spherical, that vertebrates have an internal skeletal structure and so on? — Janus

Not at all. People are certain of all sorts of stuff, that stuff included.

Do you disagree that I cannot be certain that God exists, but that I can feel certain of it?

All sorts of people are certain that God exists.

You're haven't been saying anything relevant in the way of disagreement... — Janus

That's not true. I read your bits. I summarized what you were getting at. I verified the summary by asking if you agreed. You characterized my summary as "echoing" what you've already said. Thus, I concluded that being certain, being right, and knowing the truth are all the same thing on your view. So...

I first figured out what you meant. Then, I went on to the issues...

...all instances of being certain of knowing the truth, as opposed to feeling certain of knowing the truth are instances of knowing the truth. — Janus

If that were true, it would be impossible for anyone to be certain that "God exists" is true.

To borrow a bit from you(I do not like the phrase "knowing the truth", but since you've chosen it)...

Certainty is confidence that one knows the truth; that some belief or other is true; is the case; corresponds to fact/reality, etc. Certainty does not require the belief in question to be true in order for the believer to be absolutely certain that it is. One can be both certain and wrong. History is chock full of examples.

Being certain and knowing the truth are different. The former is the attitude the person has towards some belief, particularly being confident that it is true. The latter is determined by whether or not the belief(s) is(are) true.

What you've said here is irreconcilable with all this...