What's good for the chieftain is good for the tribe. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Unless the tribe dethrones the chieftain.

Judge Kennedy can surely know that the framers did not intend for a Senate majority leader to publicly disavow his ability to do what he gave his word to do...

...and yet still act as a member of that jury, despite not meeting the qualification.

There's nothing to look into my friend. This is uncharted territory.

Judge Kennedy needs to do his job. A bit more than warning the kids to quit the practice of name calling.

McConnell, by his own admission, cannot execute the exclusive duty of Senate members to be an impartial witness during an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Why on earth has he remained acting as the member of a jury during an impeachment proceeding when he himself has publicly admitted that he is incapable of executing his official duty... his sworn oath?

:angry:

That is one of the key responsibilities given to the Senate that is part of the separation of powers...

No one else has that. All Senate members are bound by that.

There is no way that the framers meant for a president to invoke executive privilege as a means to stop direct witness testimony of an impeachment proceeding into his own behaviour.

No way.

Congressionally appropriated funds for Ukraine have nothing at all to do with Biden. Yet, Trump kept insisting upon tying the two together, as did Trump's proxies.

We must ask ourselves...

What sense does that make?

Then, invoking executive privilege as a means for impeding the impeachment proceedings looking into it.

Distraction. It is not the reason Trump pressured Ukraine.

I want Alan Dershowitz to testify as a witness/expert opinion regarding the constitutionality of the current impeachment process.

I think Trump is guilty.

Professor Dershowitz would surely testify that the founding fathers were very careful about what counted as justificatory ground for congress to impeachment a duly elected president. Mr. Dershowitz would surely agree that the framers of the constitution did decide, after careful debate - much of which Mr. Dershowitz spoke about earlier - to include the ability for Congress to impeach a president under certain conditions.

These conditions are vague, as they are meant to be. However, I think the professor would readily agree that the framers did not intend for the president to be able to invoke executive privilege as a means to impede an impeachment proceeding already in progress.

I'm sure the professor would also readily explicate upon the differences between other president's invoking it and this one.

As if it's not just been done. None of the other presidents invoked it as a means to block testimony into an investigation of their own impeachable behaviour - as determined by congress.

No, not really. Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results. — NOS4A2

No matter what?

Good thing you aren't making any important decisions around here.

:smirk:

Current or future observations refute falsifiable hypotheses.

Falsifiable hypotheses can be shown to be false.

I second that...

Thanks to for taking the time...

The defense is diversion/distraction and amounts to throwing as much shit as possible against the American media wall and running with what sticks...

the question is whether there is any problem with saying that a particular piece of butter (a particular statement) satisfies "melts at some temperature less than 100°C"... — bongo fury

All butter melts at some temperature less than one hundred degrees. So, I suppose I'm not seeing this problem that you're referring to.

You seem to have trouble with copying. Get what I wrote right first... As I said, pay attention.

What would it take for it to be false?

Butter would not melt at any temperature below one hundred.

Butter does.

So...

It's not false.

What would it take for it to be true?

Butter would need to melt at any temperature below one hundred.

So...

It's true.

No?

:brow:

Pardon me. Multiple conversations with multiple participants. Are you referring to the claim about butter?

I'm refraining from objecting.

Predictions are ordinary statements about what will happen.

“Democrats are just trying to force anyone, with any remote connection to this issue, to testify without administration lawyers present, and that puts national security at risk and also creates risks for potential witnesses who may unknowingly divulge privileged or classified information,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's an interesting way to frame it considering Bolton's concerns were that president Trump's behaviour were exactly that(putting national security at risk).

To be falsifiable is to be able to be shown as false.

Agree?
— creativesoul

Well yeah, vaguely, but that's exactly where the thread started. — bongo fury

I find no issue with that, so it's something to keep in mind. If we arrive at something which contradicts it, we aught pause and reconsider.

If we lose "statements" and stick with predictions, things change rather remarkably. There are no true predictions(when uttered). We may agree on more than not regarding predictions.

Pay attention.

The rich want a very strong welfare state -- for themselves. Thus they can take huge risks and have the taxpayers bail them out, get huge subsidies at taxpayer expense, tax breaks, favorable trade legislation, etc.

Of course that isn't socialism. — Xtrix

That's socialism for the rich and powerful(including elected officials) and brute careless capitalism for everyone else.

Electing a socialist wouldnt be much more than an aesthetic victory. — frank

There are no socialists running.

My explanation is better.

"Butter melts at less than one hundred degrees" is true, despite it not melting at all temperatures below one hundred degrees.

In order for a claim to be falsifiable it must already be false... or it's a prediction... which is neither true or false at the time it's first spoken/uttered.

My interpretation of what you are saying is that since true hypotheses cannot be falsified, since the evidence will end up supporting them, then they don't pass Popper's criterion — Coben

I am saying that true statements cannot be shown to be false. If a statement cannot be shown as false, then it is unfalsifiable. I'm not making any assessments regarding Popper's criterion... at least not intentionally. If what I say pertains to Popper's criterion, then it is purely coincidental.

It would take observation of particles produced by sub atomic decay that did not subsequently 'exhibit' identical properties to falsify the statement
— creativesoul

Yes, but not to qualify it as falsifiable — bongo fury

To be falsifiable is to be able to be shown as false.

Agree?

A president who does everything in his power to stop any and all investigations into his own behaviour is a prima facie example... living proof, if you like... of obstruction.

If that does not count nothing will.

Divert. Distract. Disrupt. Obstruct. Devalue. Demean. Ridicule.

Ray Charles could see that.

Obstruction is clear. Trump's behaviour has trumped Nixon's behaviour many times over.

Funny that... coming from a president who wants anyone to believe he is some hero of anti-corruption...

The slogan "drain the swamp" convinces only those who do not consider all the relevant facts brought into evidence.

Either all pairs of particles produced by sub-atomic decay are entangled or they are not. If they are not then the statement is false. It would take observation of particles produced by sub atomic decay that did not subsequently 'exhibit' identical properties to falsify the statement, but that situation cannot even occur if the statement is true.

Any pair of particles produced by sub-atomic decay are entangled? — bongo fury

Is this meant to represent an example of a true statement that is falsifiable?

:brow:

Unless the corruption involves an investigation he does not agree with. Then... he does everything in his power to thwart, corrupt, belittle, devalue, dismiss, and/or otherwise negatively influence those particular investigations. He has even asked those in charge to make them go away.

By contrast a necessary truth is a proposition that is true and is incapable of being anything but true — Bartricks

True by definitional fiat.

Definitions of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it can be wrong. If we do not allow for that, if we do not consider that, we find ourselves claiming that falsehoods are necessary truths.

So... I'm a bit confused. Where is the true statement that is able to be shown as false?

Trump's defense has included the claim that Trump was performing his obligation/duty to investigate and eliminate governmental corruption...

Never knew Biden was still in government. The investigation into the Bidens is already complete.

It's a distraction. A shiny object.

Obstruction.