My claim was your definition was cherry-picked. Providing multiple definitions that all deviate from yours is ample proof yours is incorrect because not supported by any of the publicly available sources. I don't need to focus on the one I think is best as a result.

Oh excellent, we have a poster who cannot read or count. First off, there's no such thing as an "official" definition of fascism, which you just made up to sound more stupid, I guess. Second, how many definitions did I just share? Hint: more than one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

As I said, cherry-picked and exaggerated as a result.

Yes, wonderful exaggeration and cherry-picked definition.

I think people are overusing the predicate "fascist" without really understanding what it is, with now both sides levelling the same accusation at each other. Very useful but demonstrative of political discourse in the US I suppose. The US has a major issue, as does the UK and to a lesser extent other "developed" nations, with thinking market efficiency equates fairness and that governments can only do harm. Both beliefs are patently absurd as historic facts have borne out.

"best democracy in the world"

Here's a picture so maybe you can understand it.



I repeat. There was no disagreement on the existence of gravity. So your analogy is still shit.

Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon — Agree to Disagree

That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy.

OK. So you have nothing to add to the discussion, failing once again to be specific. Then just kindly shut the fuck up.

@frank still waiting on an answer here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/829000

Quite so, except that his allusion to a "science and technology group" doesn't square with this being the problem he was thinking about.

Very good. I like it. Probably multiple causes any way, not least of which the actual material circumstances of its citizenry.

My theory is that with only two parties, political identity becomes much more entrenched. Part of that identity is hating the other party so even if an amoeba runs for your side, you're still going to vote for it because it's not the other side.

But on the other hand, he’s such a deeply pathological liar that he may have convinced himself somewhere along the way that what he was saying was true. — Mikie

Not relevant with respect to the intent that matters. It's not what he believed to be true. I can believe you're part of a Martian invasion and kill you, it's still going to be murder because my intent was to bring about your death. The reason for that could be a mitigating circumstance but in itself is not relevant for establishing intent.

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. What "group" are you exactly a member of? Or are you just making things up in the hopes we take your unidentified problems serious?

That's not any clearer. What challenges specifically Mr "I'm in a vague, no-name science and technology group but I cannot get beyond hand waving at problems and whining about tone"?

I belong to a science and technology group where the consensus has long been that there's no way to avoid climate change. — frank

Spell out that position more clearly because stated like this it's patently absurd.

Obviously you don't "get it" because that's a misrepresentation of what I said.

blah blah. Just another red herring. The question is whether Trump committed a crime, which is a legal question, not whether what he did was a crime. I'm not appealing to the law. I'm explaining it to you so your tiny reptilian brain can reason it's way to a sensible position instead of verbally tossing Trump's salad all the time.

The whole victim shtick is a red herring. It's irrelevant. Euthanasia doesn't have a victim either but is still illegal. Attempts at crimes are victimless as well, still prosecuted. Jaywalking, not wearing a seat belt, speeding etc. All victimless, all prosecuted. You see a conspiracy this quickly then you should certainly see one with Trump. But you don't which is just a sad consequence of your boring biases.

Victims are not required. Failed attempts at crimes can be convicted as well. As to the particular acts, they are set out in the writ of summons or whatever that's called in the US. Whether they can prove intent with respect to the conspiracies is another. I think the classified documents case is much simpler to prove because they are general intent crimes.

Not by every method.

Even if he believed it was stolen, yes, even if it was stolen, stealing it back isn't lawful.

Edit: meaning criminal intent can arise irrespective of what he believed to be the case. It is sufficient that he intended the result of the conspiracy.

How is it winning exactly if I must spend resources on adaptation when I'd rather spend time on leisure?

While you cannot infer intent from the act itself, it's still possible to infer it from other acts before that. For instance, you had a prior fight with the person, went to the store to buy a gun and then went to their house, we have a clear case for intent without a confession.

Are you here pretending this hasn't been extensively dealt with in the IPCC? The limited local benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's not a balancing act at all. We overwhelmingly lose.

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits — Agree to Disagree

This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some.

For general intent crimes juries will be instructed to infer intent from the proof of the act. The federal documents case mostly has general intent crimes I think, as they do not aim at a specific result that mens rea should be aimed at.

The Jan. 6 case though, does require the prosecution to establish that Trump's intent was aimed at the result of the conspiracies. There are restrictions on admitting testimony from others about what Trump said due to "hearsay" not being admissable evidence. So yes, we should ignore Bannon's statements insofar as they are interpreted as going to the heart of Trump's intent. However, they corroborate with actual acts by Trump (declaring himself the winner), which in a constellation acts and facts can result as proof of intent. And that constellation of facts seems quite clear to me, the speech, the claims Pence could make him President, the claim of being the winner despite the official results contradicting him, etc. etc. They were all aimed at refusing the official outcome and being made President. There's no adequate alternative explanation as the acts are a concerted effort.

Returning member under a different name?

How pathetic would it be if it's Trump vs. Biden again?

Mr. Sock then. Obviously.

Stop spouting propaganda. There was no Russian hoax. Mueller's report showed several issues that could've been prosecuted.

All the facts concerning his crimes are in the past. Unlike you I've got a good grasp of criminal law.

Like almost everything American nowadays it's a show. It's been politicised, precisely as Trump wanted, in which law, evidence and facts no longer are relevant. Of course you'll be disappointed.

I don't know why everyone is arguing with NOS4A2. Trump will go to jail. He'll never except that. Nobody gives a shit.

Did you even read what Michael wrote? Because your answer has no bearing on the examples given under a, b, d and e.

I'm sure with your psychology degree the vegetables are a bit more depressed nowadays.

1982 for me. I was 4 at the time.

That was it. I just think it's funny someone would demand people not discuss US politics in a... checks notes... thread about Trump. I saw a parallel and pounced on it like a kitten.

I wish you Americans would stop making unreasonable demands of the rest of the world and then act surprised we take issue with it and have a commensurate enjoyment when you idiots elect idiots and still like to play at being "leader of the free world" causing more trouble than China and Russia combined.