Bernie Sanders is very good at drawing clean clear lines in the sand and making people choose a side... on the one side is what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans... and on the other, what's not.

Choose a side, or better yet...

Let's look at what you've already chosen(in cases where it applies)... Bernie was right at the time, and sometimes he was the only one(the only nay).

His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten). — Xtrix

I would lean towards intentionally neglected to be mentioned by opposing candidates... not forgotten.

It's not about my imaginings. It's about the way it's supposed to work. Not all Senators are failing to perform sworn duty.

They didn't do anything unconstitutional; that was the point I made earlier. They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable. Senators have carte blanche to judge guilt and to judge whether or not the crime is a "high crime or misdemeanor", and this implies there is always sufficient wiggle room to acquit. They will nearly universally use this wiggle room to acquit when it's a President of their own party. Unless the opposition party has close to a 2/3 majority (which is hard to forsee ever happening), there will not be a removal — Relativist

You do realize that most of(nearly all) the framers were against political factions(parties)... right?

So, to point out partisan politics implying that it is not unconstitutional is well...

Just plain wrong.

They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable — Relativist

Impeachment is the tool of enforcement.

Well, Clinton was impeached on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power. With the obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50, but nowhere near the 2/3 majority. And btw, no Democrats senators did vote for convicting Clinton, although 5 democratic House members were in favor of impeaching Clinton. — ssu

I'm not familiar enough with the Clinton case to comment. My comments on Senatorial duty apply... always.

Again, if a term at the tip of one’s tongue is meaningless (because its meaning is forgotten along with the term, this since they're both are one and the same "elemental constituent") — javra

That is not a rendition of my argument.

You're increasing the complexity of your argument without considering what I've just said with regard to what the meaning of a term consists of.

The term is one elemental constituent. That fact refutes your initial objection. No kidding.
— creativesoul

An assertion of fact based on what evidence? — javra

Every example thereof.

The meaning of a term always includes the term.

So long...

That's also not the only place in the Constitution where the separation of powers are set out.

Touching fire causes pain. The correlation drawn between touching the fire and the ensuing pain makes both meaningful to the creature drawing the correlation. The correlation need not be drawn in order for touching fire to cause pain.

There's a simple actual distinction. Causality and meaning are not equivalent.

Give me one example of meaning that does not consist of a plurality of things as well as a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things.

That's all it takes to refute the position I've been advocating here. You've yet to have done so.

...now I see why you think all I said was incoherent, b/c you are off topic and missing the point of the thread. — Sir Philo Sophia

:brow:

Statements are the sort of thing that can be true/false. "Truth" can be used to denote true statements. "Truth" can be used to denote coherence/consistency. "Truth" can be used to denote validity(following the rules of correct inference). "Truth" can be used to denote belief.

"Truth" - as a term - has many accepted different meanings.

I never meant this to be an argument about the merits of small government, just about what exactly people mean by that — Pfhorrest

Depends upon who you ask. There is no single accepted answer. It's a motto, a slogan... most often employed by people who cannot further explicate it.

Causality needs no creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. All meaning does.

None of it is clear. Not the first, not the last. Makes no sense to me.

Define the terms. Substitute the definitions for the terms. See what it looks like. I quickly performed this test and arrived at incoherence/self contradiction.

Causality is not a type of meaning.

The Senate majority are not doing their job.
— creativesoul
They are doing their job, because the majority of the Senate are Republicans. — ssu

No, they are not.

Their job - as clearly demarcated in the Constitution - is to act as impartial jurors in a presidential impeachment proceeding(the trial)...

That is their only job in this matter. McConnell publicly announced that he could not be an impartial juror in this proceeding. That is to publicly pronounce dereliction of sworn duty.

Disgraceful. That is itself grounds for impeachment.

That Justice Roberts has not recalled that juror, that McConnell has not recused, all of this and more is utterly disgraceful.

...how a person comes to hold awareness of a particular concept and, hence, of a conceptual meaning holds no bearing on what is here at issue... — javra

If the meaning of a term consists of the term, then when one cannot remember the term, one cannot remember the meaning...

Pretty simple and always true.

You're increasing the complexity of your argument without considering what I've just said with regard to what the meaning of a term consists of.

The term is one elemental constituent. That fact refutes your initial objection. No kidding.

Causality is not existentially dependent upon meaning. Some of the most rudimentary level thought and belief recognize/attribute causality. Causality and meaning are distinct. It seems to me that you're conflating the two.

Take all the evidence. Lose Trump as the individual. Imagine another.

What does the evidence warrant regardless of who the defendant is?

That's impartiality in a nutshell.

The overwhelming majority of the citizens want to see the evidence being suppressed(key witnesses).

When an overwhelming majority of the people want the same thing, and those in charge of representing them do not, well...

The Senate majority are not doing their job.

If truth was being sought then anyone and everyone so seeking would take every action in order to disclose it. The contrary(concealing it) is also true.

One cannot do both, argue on behalf of following the constitution all the while simultaneously neglecting what it says regarding one's own sworn duty according to it.

And to think that the defense argues on procedural grounds.

Shameless and without integrity.

For the very first time in American history, the president's defense team included most Senate members of his own party during impeachment proceedings into his own behaviour.

:worry:

A political sham. Shameful and very dangerous precedents are being set.

A judge who allows a juror to remain despite that juror's public admission that he cannot execute that sworn duty.

Members of the Senate have all taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and execute the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by it. Acting as an impartial jurors during presidential impeachment proceedings is one exclusive responsibility given to only members of the Senate.

What needs to happen next is an exodus of recusals.

It's disgraceful.

What correlation, association, and/or connection would you ascribe to the meaning of a term that is at the tip of one’s tongue? — javra

This makes no sense on my view. Meaning consists of correlations. Your asking me what meaning I would ascribe to the meaning of a term that is at the tip of one's tongue.

Hopefully the correct one.



"At the tip of one's tongue"

Temporarily forgotten... in part at least. The forgotten term's resting place. Times when one knows that one has previously been able to say something appropriate. Times when one knows that there is an acceptable description, but cannot remember it.

To be clear: to the known meaning of a word which is momentarily not known to oneself as sign/symbol … but, again, whose meaning one is nevertheless aware of. — javra

Forgotten.

At the very juncture of this experience, the meaning cannot be deemed to be due to a correlation involving its sign, for the sign is absent from one’s awareness while the meaning is not. — javra

The meaning of a term is lost when a word is on the tip of one's tongue; when a term is forgotten; when one cannot remember which term applies. Akin to apples and apple pies. Apples are part of apple pies. Terms are part of the meaning of the term. In order for a term to be on the tip of one's tongue, one must have already long since used it or been around it's use.

One cannot forget which word to say unless previous use has paved the way.

So... this poses no problem for my position.

No.

...one type of meaning in something is if it, in-and-of-itself, contributes to an explanatory principle of something else; e.g., a causal reason for a process being triggered is not a symbol or sign. — Sir Philo Sophia

This is incoherent.

Glad to be such an inspiration...

:wink:

You're not the boss of me.

:wink:

If what Donald John Trump has done does not count as obstruction of justice then nothing will. There are many who are complicit as well.

The impeachment process itself has been corrupted. The Judge is allowing jury members who cannot perform the only job they have here...

When profit is the sole motive... to hell with what's good, right, just, best, moral...

Corruption is the problem. One general one anyway.

Trump is not the problem. Trump is a symptom thereof. Fox is not the problem either.

The problem with an "anything goes" societal ethics is that anything stays.

What is at issue here is the fact that thinking requires subject matter, something which is thought about, and the subject matter is generally believed to be thoughts. — Metaphysician Undercover

That would be thinking about thought as compared/contrasted to thinking about something other than thought.

The term "require" is being used nonsensically if one says thought does not require a thinker. If "require" means existentially dependent upon, then it ought be obvious that all thought requires a thinker.