The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint. So in this case the idea that gag-orders insure a fair trial is false. Yes he was harmed; his rights were violated by the same institution that is tasked with protecting them.

You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. That’s all you’ve offered. The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust. You yourself argued prior restraint, echoing the court, as far as I can tell not applying a single thought of your own.

If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship, there are thousands of years of argument and history you can peruse if you’re interested, but I call you a censor because you defend censorship, not because I disagree with you.

Being a conservative, to an anti-conservative, is tantamount to being a literal Nazi. — AmadeusD

I'm sure there are such people, but I haven't noticed Democratic leaders promoting that sort of thing. On the other hand:

Trump ha promoted the message "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" (see this)

Trump's 2020 campaign sent a faux survey to supporters asking if they were "American or democrat?"

Trump has called Democrats "treasonous" for failing to applaud his SOTU.

He's called Democrats "fascists" and he's called them "vermin".

Anti-Trumpism is a propaganda-driven moral panic. In order to stop the authoritarianism, racism, and fascism that never seems to arrive, anti-Trumpism employs all of the above to save us from the existential threat of a Trump presidency. Even though their conspiracy theories have revealed themselves as hoaxes, and their fear-mongering as lies, they double down, creating for themselves the conditions that justify the panic.

The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint — NOS4A2

A non-point. All gag orders entail prior restraint.

You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. — NOS4A2

"Guide my reasoning"? It's perfectly rational to rely on authorities, as long as one doesn't treat them as infallible and remains open to revising one's view when there are compelling reasons to do so. A Trumpist dogmatically stating their opinion isn't compelling.

The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust...not applying a single thought of your own. — NOS4A2

Re-read that post and you'll see that I'm open to argument and evidence. You seem upset that I don't simply embrace your dogmatic statement.

If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship — NOS4A2

I don't think censorship is preferable to free speech, but it's a leap to call the gag order "censorship". As I mentioned, there are no withheld facts, the gag order is narrow, and the constraint is temporary, and it has not caused Trump harm. You've provided no facts or reasoning to support your contention, and have ignored what I said about the Constitution. Dogmatism is not persuasive.

It's a leap to call a court-imposed restriction on what someone can say at the penalty of fine or jail censorship?

The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is the right of the defendant, not the judge and his daughter. The gag orders here, as in Chutkin's court, is to protect people from supposed threats, not to protect their's or anyone else's right to a fair trial. That's my legal contention.

My moral contention is that it is wrong to censor someone on specious grounds, such as prior restraint, the assumption that his speaking will lead to this or that ill effect in the future. They do not know the future. They do not know what will happen. They cannot connect Trump's speech to any of the threats, nor do they know the motives of anyone who threatens them, and until they find someone who confesses that Trump's words forced him against his will to threaten someone, the conspiracy theory is absurd.

I'm not so sure you're right here.

"The president is sort of like [Joseph] Goebbels."
'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black' - Biden

I think that's worse than calling someone a Nazi for no good reason.

"Trump is compared to Hitler because he demonizes immigrants and refugees, denies science and facts, and promotes hate and division." - Ocasio-Cortez,

"The President is an open racist, a bigot, and has repeatedly showed strong shades of Hitler in his policies and actions." - Omar

"Trump's authoritarian tendencies and attacks on minorities are reminiscent of Hitler's tactics." - Sanders

"Americans elected an authoritarian, anti-immigrant, racist strongman to the nation's highest office... Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again followers are older, less educated, less prosperous, and more white than the population at large."
“Americans, particularly black Americans, can’t afford to make that same mistake about the harm that could be done by a man named Hitler or a man named Trump,” - both Hank Johnson.

"Trump is a dictator in the making, following in Hitler's footsteps with his racist and xenophobic policies." - Tlaib


"What he has done and what he is doing goes to the Joseph Goebbels playbook. The big lie. You say the lie over and over and over, again and again, and it becomes the truth." - Cohen

You can think these are reasonable opinions for a lay person, but they are clearly inappropriate for elected officials. But, defense of them abounds.

The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. — NOS4A2

I recommend reading the DC Appellate Court ruling that upheld Chutkin's gag order. It provides important context that is applicable to all the gag orders imposed on Trump.

For example:


"after indictment, criminal defendants are frequently subjected to “substantial liberty restrictions as a result of the operation of our criminal justice system.” More specifically, as a less restrictive alternative to pre-trial detention, Congress granted courts the authority to release indicted defendants under the “least restrictive * * * condition, or combination of conditions [of release], that * * * will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Such conditions commonly include measures that burden criminal defendants’ ability to act, associate, and speak...
...like any other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump does not have an unlimited right to speak. “Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated to other interests that arise in [the trial] setting.

...The record before the district court and its factual findings demonstrate that some of Mr. Trump’s speech poses a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the criminal proceeding against him...

...The record also shows that former President Trump’s words have real-world consequences. Many of those on the receiving end of his attacks pertaining to the 2020 election have been subjected to a torrent of threats and intimidation from his supporters...

...The former President has repeatedly attacked both the presiding judge and his law clerk in a New York state-law lawsuit. Since those attacks, the judge’s chambers have been “inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, and packages.” New York v. Trump, No. 452564/2022, NYSCEF No. 1631 at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 3, 2023). In addition to threatening death or serious harm, callers have labeled the judge and clerk “Nazi[ s],” “dirty Jews,” and child molesters...

...Mr. Trump himself recognizes the power of his words and their effect on his audience, agreeing that his supporters “listen to [him] like no one else.”...

...Mr. Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case in two respects

Mr. Trump’s right to a fair trial does not give him “the right to insist upon the opposite of that right”—that is, a trial prejudiced in his favor. See Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965)...”

All your examples entail various people attacking one individual: Trump, based on things he has actually said. The comparisons could be debated. By contrast, Trump (and Trumpists) are making assertions about classes of citizens based on their party affiliation - displaying and encouraging bigotry toward the group. That's quite different.

With the exception of Hank Johnson, I agree but I disagree this matters.

The issues they are supporting the claims with are just mild, uninteresting conservative principles stated as if bigoted. That is, in fact, the same play. 'deplorables' also comes to mind. Nothing they've said is honest, it is massaging statements under assumptions about underlying beliefs. It's the same play.
The other thing to keep in mind is that largely these comments are actually about hte administration, and by extension its adherents. This is the way we pretend is reasonable to look at ridiculous shit Conservatives say too, It seems to me.

Then lets discuss a few of your examples.

Biden said Trump was "sort of like [Joseph] Goebbels".

Goebbels was Nazi Germany's chief propogandist, who spewed disinformation. Trumps pews a great deal of disinformation.
Seems an apt comparison.

You mentioned Hillary saying "half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic". The "half" was an exaggeration (which Hillary regretted the next day) but it's accurate that Trump attracts those sort of people.

You mentioned AOC saying, ""Trump is compared to Hitler because he demonizes immigrants and refugees, denies science and facts, and promotes hate and division."
Again, that sounds accurate (Immigrants are "destroying the blood of our country. That's what they're doing. They're destroying our country" )

Omar: "The President is an open racist, a bigot, and has repeatedly showed strong shades of Hitler in his policies and actions."
Trump's degrading comments about immigrants sure sound racist, and his Muslim ban sure seemed bigoted. But even if he's not truly racist in his heart, these words and policies clearly appeal to those who are- so it's worthwhile drawing attention to them and discussing.

Sanders:"Trump's authoritarian tendencies and attacks on minorities are reminiscent of Hitler's tactics."
Is he wrong?

"Trump is a dictator in the making, following in Hitler's footsteps with his racist and xenophobic policies." - Tlaib
A bit over the top, but his immigration talk certainly sounds racist and xenophobic (He has
lamented that people were not immigrating to the United States from “nice” countries “like Denmark”).

Cohen: "What he has done and what he is doing goes to the Joseph Goebbels playbook. The big lie. You say the lie over and over and over, again and again, and it becomes the truth."
100% accurate. About 70% of Republicans believe the "stolen election" lie, and that he was completely exonerated in the Muelller probe.

So what's your take on these?

Climate change is an existential risk. So that example is particularly relevant. But there are multiple others— that was one, yes. I’m not basing my entire judgement on that one example, though. (Some might argue that’s a kind of “fallacy” on your part.) — Mikie

The fallacy is taking one dimension of evaluation and claiming it's conclusive.

My pointing that out is not a fallacy, it's basic reasoning.

Yes, climate change is important, but so too is genocide and war, including nuclear war.

You are welcome to make the argument that Biden's complicity in genocide is a "no biggy" or even a positive. You are welcome to make the argument that advancing geriatric dementia in the president isn't a war risk, murder, genocide and nuclear risk (for example you could argue that the generals don't have dementia and they'll just do what they want and that's ok as there's no actual reason for civilian oversight of the military in making key decisions; i.e. that you're fine, and it should be fine for everyone, that a Biden presidency means a de facto military dictatorship in any military sphere and your votes mean nothing on these issues).

What I'm pointing out is you haven't make any such argument, you've just blurted "Mahhhh! Climate Change!!" which isn't an argument. You could make a nuanced argument that, while we both agree Biden is a terrible candidate who shouldn't be president, he's not as bad as Trump; that the risks of a Biden dementia driven incompetent administration are lower risks that a megalomania driven incompetency of a Trump administration.

Yes, supporting genocide is sickening. So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them.

With Trump you get all of the above. With Biden, you get one: now-wavering support for Israel. Trump would not be the least pressured by or concerned with anti-genocide protests. — Mikie

Simply stating that Trump is worse on all issues of concern isn't an argument.

Trump is not a neocon, which is a bid positive on the pointless evil war issue.

Just brushing aside genocide is pretty bold.

The fallacy is taking one dimension of evaluation and claiming it's conclusive. — boethius

Strawman.

I never did that. I gave ONE example that demonstrates ONE way in which there are significant differences and in which one administration is clearly better — which was in response to your difficulty determining such.

You are welcome to make the argument that Biden's complicity in genocide is a "no biggy" or even a positive. — boethius

Strawman. I never once said that. Stop making things up.

You are welcome to make the argument that advancing geriatric dementia in the president isn't a war risk — boethius

Strawman.

(But who are you talking about, Trump or Biden? Both are geriatric. Claiming only Biden is off his rocker is swallowing right wing propaganda wholesale. Not a surprise.)

What I'm pointing out is you haven't make any such argument, you've just blurted "Mahhhh! Climate Change!!" which isn't an argument. — boethius

One has done the most of any president for climate change; one says it’s a hoax. That to you amounts to “Mahh climate change!”? Are you just a child?

You could make a nuanced argument that, while we both agree Biden is a terrible candidate who shouldn't be president, he's not as bad as Trump — boethius

I do so, and more than happy to get into the weeds about each one:

So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them. — Mikie

Your response:

Simply stating that Trump is worse on all issues of concern isn't an argument. — boethius

So pointing out that Biden is far better on climate change “isn’t an argument.” Pointing out numerous other ways Trump is worse also “isn’t an argument.” So cool: you don’t know what an argument is.

As an aside: I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with.

Remember how this started. I’ll remind you, since you’ve clearly forgotten:

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

So my point stands: you just haven’t paid attention. A Biden administration is better and will be better than a Trump administration, on nearly every metric.

What there’s no basis for is the belief that Trump will do any better on Israel. There’s some reason to think he’d be “better” on Ukraine, in that he’ll let Putin do whatever he wants (and will thus end the war), but he’s such a geriatric dementia patient it’s impossible to predict. Even so, it doesn’t negate every other way in which he’s simply awful — and which you want to ignore. So you’re not just ignorant, but willfully so. (But let me guess: that’s “not an argument.”)

It’s not a hard choice.

Strawman.

I never did that. I have ONE example that demonstrates ONE way in which there are significant differences and in which one administration is clearly better — which was in response to your difficulty determining such. — Mikie

That's exactly what your argument is, that Biden is better on climate change.

Your claim of "significantly better" is ludicrous as you yourself state that fossil production is at record highs under Biden, so really by "significant difference" you mean zero practical difference but some difference in rhetoric, which you claim is important.

When I pointed out that climate change is only one dimension of evaluation you then respond to that just repeating your point about climate change.

Not only have you presented no reason to believe Biden's duplicitous rhetoric, i.e. corrupts utterings in service of the oil lobby, is any better than Trump's overt utterings in service of the oil lobby in terms of consequence, you just ignore the other subjects such as Biden's complicity in a literal genocide.

Which, maybe take a step back to appreciate the irony and just how bad faith people of your ilk are, for I remember very clearly the parallels Democrats would make between Trump and Hitler and every possible pretext used to accuse Trump of essentially being Hitler and his followers brown shirts (and if not explicitly Hitler then as close as possible to that message).

Then, your guy, backs, finances, arms, helps coordinate, carries water for and covers with gaslights, encourages to "keep doing what they're doing", in participating in a literal genocide and it's "nothing to see here".

Truly amazing.

Strawman. I never once said that. Stop making things up. — Mikie

Pointing out you can argue the genocide issue in Biden's favour is not a straw man, it's pointing out what you would need to do to support your conclusion.

It's you who claims not only is Biden better than Trump but this is somehow trivially obvious.

You provide one dimension of analysis, don't even argue that, then dismiss all the other dimensions of analysis in just stating Biden is better on everything.

Last I checked, Trump doesn't have a literal genocide under his belt, so you're obviously wrong.

You'd need to show how it's trivially obvious Biden's helping carry out a genocide is somehow trivially irrelevant, to support your position that it's trivially easy (aka. obvious) to conclude Biden is better than Trump.

Otherwise, genocide is a pretty serious thing and it's not trivially obvious why you'd reward genocide at the ballot box.

Strawman. But who are you talking about, Trump or Biden? Both are geriatric. Claiming only Biden is off his rocker is swallowing right wing propaganda wholesale. Not a surprise. — Mikie

I've made what's called an actual argument on this point, that old age physical and mental decline is an exponential process and so the difference in age between Trump and Biden is quite significant.

Based on the risk of death representing general health, Biden is basically 2x less healthy and more advanced in mental and physical decline than Trump. A factor of two is significant.

It's also clear from just looking and listening to Biden and Trump ("paying attention" which you admonish us to do) that Biden is not only old but literally entering geriatric dementia and it's getting worse all the time, whereas Trump has not (he still "has it together" in his peculiar Trump way).

One has done the most of any president for climate change; one says it’s a hoax. That to you amounts to “Mahh climate change!”? — Mikie

"Done the most" in terms of reducing emissions or just in that "rhetoric" you've been talking about and meaningless policy that has zero effect on emissions?

Just like the issue of old age, climate change requires math to understand.

The actions required to actually avoid terrible climactic disruptions are significant; measured in multiples of WWII scale global effort.

The Democrats "business as usual but we'll throw you a few bones" is absolutely meaningless in outcome, exactly the same as just assuming climate change is a hoax. Which can be seen when plotting COP meetings against emissions; there is zero effect of COP meetings on emissions, doesn't matter who's in the Whitehouse, what gets discussed or agreed, the emissions keep rising.

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans on climate change is that with Democrats will appease a bit the anxiety with "rhetoric" while pursuing the exact same policies of bending the knee to the oil lobby.

There really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on this particular issue; where there's big differences is in things like starting or enabling more wars, in which Trump is simply empirically better. Trump simply doesn't have a war boner like Biden and the neocons do, and that's simply a factually better thing about him.

I do so, and more than happy to get into the weeds about each one: — Mikie

Well then go ahead.

You haven't even dealt with Biden's corruption and service to the oil lobby being more harmful to the environmental movement than someone overtly hostile to it. Sabotage from within (such as a corrupt leader in power) can be far more damaging than facing someone overtly hostile in power. Sometimes time in opposition is essential for building movements (precisely because it allows for purging corrupt elements and building good faith positions that can attract new partisans, rather than covering for some corrupt senile idiot which deflates even existing partisans).

And that's only one issue, which plays out over the long term so there's really very little difference (almost exactly zero difference in terms of actual emissions) between Trump and Biden, whereas other issues are acute, such as committing genocide or starting a nuclear war (you either do or you don't during your time in power, and Biden is already 1 for 2).

So pointing out that Biden is far better on climate change isn’t an argument. Pointing out numerous other ways Trump is worse also isn’t an argument. — Mikie

It is not an argument that supports your position that Biden is obviously better than Trump, and even that argument is unsupported as you simply ignore criticism (that backing a corrupt leader is worse than time in opposition for a movement in the long term; that being undermined from within is sometimes worse than being overtly attacked).

Your other "pointing out" are not arguments at all, you just make claims without any reasoning or justifications.

You simply assert that Trump would be even more genocidal than Biden, but what's the argument? Why would we believe that? Biden "wavering" after 6 months of intensely supporting genocide and helping to carry it out being a positive for Biden, really needs some intense justification to believe.

Trump has made anti-war part of his brand, such as claiming he could get a deal worked out over Ukraine in a single day.

He'd also be under intense opposition and protest from Democrats. Democrats would be losing their shit if Trump was backing Israel committing a genocide, Israel soldiers literally parading around draped in woman's bras as war trophies (and you have the courage to claim Biden is "pro woman").

Trump was already elected president once and it wasn't a world ending event (as many advertised), whereas a senile demented corrupt idiot could actually start a nuclear war with much higher probability.

Then there's the fact when one's own side becomes too corrupt, it is far healthier for the movement to punish that corruption and then spend time in opposition rebuilding than to continue the corruption. If the other side is equally corrupt, that is actually a good thing in this situation as it makes it easier to consolidate, clean house, and then return to power with some less corrupt people and better ideas.

The democrat position is basically: reward us for our corruption because there's slightly more corruption on the other side.

Mr. Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case in two respects

The theory is complete nonsense. Trump making people aware of someone's name through criticism or otherwise does not cause threats. The worst it could ever do is inform others, and that's where his culpability ends.

Their entire theory is premised on the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. At no time do they consider the millions of people who do not threaten anyone, but will violate their rights in order to stop the few people (if any) who do.

The threats, if there really are any, are strictly caused by the motives of the threatener. We don't even know who they are, and the court never mentions who they are. It is only assumed they are Trump supporters, based on the scantest of evidence, but that's it. The recipients could be lying, like Jussie Smollett. Those issuing threats could be operatives pretending to be Trump supporters, doing so to influence the trial. They could be foreign actors. They could be kids goofing off.

Either way, the very high burden of proof for a prior restraint gag order has not been met.

The threats, if there really are any, are strictly caused by the motives of the threatener. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure what it means to be "strictly caused", but there's a clear, predictable connection between Trump's verbal attacks on named individuals and threats by Trump supporters to that individual. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think Trump is unaware? For that matter, it wouldn't even matter if Trump were too stupid to see this - the effect is obvious.

This comment is pertinent:

If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. — NOS4A2

So... it seems you feel they deserve to be threatened, irrespective of its impact on the administration of justice. So I don't take your legal analysis seriously - you grope for all available rationalizations.

That's exactly what your argument is, that Biden is better on climate change. — boethius

No. My argument (so glad to know I have an argument now) is that given two choices, Biden is clearly better. Climate change is one example, and a good one.

Do we have to go over what “example” means, or do we need to incorporate “argument” and “fallacy” first? Maybe first principles…

so really by "significant difference" you mean zero practical difference but some difference in rhetoric, which you claim is important. — boethius

No, I mean significant. In comparison to Trump — who, again, believes it’s a hoax.

That you don’t know the impact of the IRA or EPA policy isn’t my fault. Your ignorance on this matter is indicative of the general struggle to determine who’s “better.” So again, my point is proven: you’re just not paying attention. I’ll be happy to go over the details— but I won’t hold my breath. I’m sure you’ll go on pretending that you’re an expert instead.

When I pointed out that climate change is only one dimension of evaluation you then respond to that just repeating your point about climate change. — boethius

You know, there’s an easy way to see what happened: go back and read.

I didn’t respond by repeating the point about climate change, I responding by explaining that climate change is ONE EXAMPLE.

“One dimension.” Laughable. It’s called an example. But please keep trying to intellectualize something a child can understand.

Not only have you presented no reason to believe Biden's duplicitous rhetoric, i.e. corrupts utterings in service of the oil lobby, is any better than Trump's overt utterings in service of the oil lobby in terms of consequence, you just ignore the other subjects such as Biden's complicity in a literal genocide. — boethius

No— this is your fabrication. I quoted what both men have said about climate change, which is evidence enough — but beyond that, mentioned the IRA of Biden and Trump policies and actions, including appointing an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA, as further evidence beyond simple rhetoric.

That you don’t remember any of this is your problem, not mine. Your delusions of “What happened” are pathetic, when there’s a clear record of it. Just scroll up.

Then, your guy, backs, finances, arms, helps coordinate, carries water for and covers with gaslights, encourages to "keep doing what they're doing", in participating in a literal genocide and it's "nothing to see here". — boethius

Which is why I’ve been condemning Biden and US policy both in Ukraine and Israel for years…also easy to look up.

God you’re delusional. (“My guy.” Lol.)

You provide one dimension of analysis, don't even argue that, then dismiss all the other dimensions of analysis in just stating Biden is better on everything. — boethius

No: I provide one example (and then many others), gave evidence, and have acknowledged your apparently one-track issue (war) many times, both here and for years on this forum.

But keep living in a fantasy if you want to. Pure strawmen — that’s all you’ve got so far, because you’re too childish to slow down and read carefully enough to comprehend what’s being written to you.

Sorry, but your self-serving narrative is blinding you from the reality.

The reality is this:

1) You made a ridiculous statement about there being “no basis” to determine whether Trump or Biden will be “better.”

2) I give one example where the differences both in ideology, rhetoric, and policy are stark.

3) You blather on about how that is “one dimensional analysis,” a “fallacy,” and “not an argument.”

4) Then you make up a bunch of bullshit out of thin air, creating strawman after strawman. Since that’s all you’re apparently intellectually capable of engaging with, I don’t blame you.

I’ll ignore the rest of your unlettered response. I’m sure it’s more of the same. Since you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent anyway, I don’t really need to be involved. The record is quite clear.

Trump versus Biden isn’t a hard choice.

That doesn’t mean Biden is “my guy,” it doesn’t mean his policies have been great, it doesn’t mean his foreign policy should be ignored, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be criticized, it doesn’t mean he’s a good man, etc. It means exactly what I said in response to your ridiculous statement: given 2 choices, one is clearly worse than the other and we should vote against the worse one.

Very simple. Yes, I know you struggle with it— I’m clear. It’s clear you don’t find it simple or easy. But as I’ve said several times, the reason for this is that you’re not paying attention; you’re ignorant. That’s understandable when you’re focused almost exclusively on foreign policy — if I were in your shoes, perhaps I’d be confused to. But even on that point, there’s no good reason to believe a demented, megalomaniacal degenerate will do any better on foreign policy.

I'm not sure what it means to be "strictly caused", but there's a clear, predictable connection between Trump's verbal attacks on named individuals and threats by Trump supporters to that individual. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think Trump is unaware?

I do deny it. The ability to criticize is a precious right. Criticism does not constitute a threat, plain and simple, but that’s how they and you are trying to portray it. And again, there is little to no evidence these threats even occurred, that they were from Trump supporters, that they are the result of Trump’s criticisms.

No. My argument (so glad to know I have an argument now) is that given two choices, Biden is clearly better. Climate change is one example, and a good one. — Mikie

You've have provided an argument on climate change.

A bad argument, but at least an argument with some supporting evidence.

Simply stating Biden is better than Trump on all issues, is not an argument, it is a claim without justification.

It's also clearly false, on the issue of being a geriatric person susceptible to dementia and having hallucinations (such as Mitterrand is still the leader of France), Biden is clearly worse than Trump as he is older. So on the simple issue of age, Biden is quantitatively a worse candidate than Trump.

It’s not the same, it’s not equal, it’s not hard to see which is worse. The choice is not difficult. — Mikie

This is your position, that the "choice is not difficult".

You provide zero argument to support not only is Biden the right choice but that it's an easy choice to make.

You accept Biden is committing a genocide but somehow it's easy and trivial to know Biden is the best choice. Maybe step back and listen to yourself.

If you don't like genocide, it should be at minimum pretty fucking difficult to vote for someone who has committed a genocide.

And Biden and Trump are not the only two choices available, you can refuse to reward Biden for genocide while not voting for Trump. Yes, obviously Trump is then more likely to win, but making the point that genocide is not acceptable can be pretty easily argued is more important than ensuring Trump is not reelected. You say Trump would also commit the genocide even harder; not only is that far from established but the option is available to demonstrate distaste for genocide by voting for neither Trump or Biden.

It's only through voting for a third party that corruption will be held accountable. Republicans and Democrats are clearly equally contented with having the other as a foil while they make bank.

No, I mean significant. In comparison to Trump — who, again, believes it’s a hoax. — Mikie

You simply ignore the part where Biden and the democrats are not doing anything of significance on climate change, and their corrupt duplicitous apathy and service to the oil lobby behind the scenes significantly weakens the movement.

Nothing of importance on climate change will be decided in the next 4 years, so if this really is your only major issue of consideration, it's clearly not a given that continuing to back and reward a corrupt leader with power is better than having a clear opponent in power.

You simply ignore the fact that being in opposition can bring very essential discipline to a political movement. The "good ideas" but indefinite corruption is not a good long term strategy, at some point the corruption is as bad as just straight up bad ideas such as calling climate change a hoax.

“One dimension.” Laughable. It’s called an example. But please keep trying to intellectualize something a child can understand. — Mikie

You've argued Biden is better than Trump on climate change.

You have not provided any actual argument that Biden is overall better than Trump.

You've simply stated your claim and then you have an example.

Now, if that was all you were doing, dropping your opinion and providing one example, ok that's fine.

Where I take issue is your claim that it's not simply your opinion that Biden is better than Trump, but that it's obvious. "Not difficult choice" to use your words.

Something obvious should be incredibly easy to argue.

Now, if Biden wasn't a corrupt geriatric mental patient that has a disturbing history of touching children and committing genocide, and a good candidate with all their marbles and a lack of corruption scandals and genocide, then it would indeed be pretty obvious that Biden is better than Trump.

But that's not the case here, Biden is a terrible candidate (even you agree to that) so the choice is obviously not easy. Maybe Trump is better on some key issues like nuclear war. Someone with dementia could really start a nuclear war in a situation where Trump, as erratic and bombastic as he is, wouldn't even consider it as an option.

Then there are longer term strategic considerations. If Trump wins the Democratic Party may have opportunity to rebuild and find better leaders than Biden, that could have a really big impact longer term than sticking to a decrepit leader now.

I know this is difficult to process for you, but your simply repeating that the "choice is easy" doesn't make is so. Global situation is complicated, politics is complicated, it's not a binary choice, the difference between two terrible candidates is not obvious (just like the difference between too good candidates isn't obvious).

Which is why I’ve been condemning Biden and US policy both in Ukraine and Israel for years…also easy to look up.

God you’re delusional. (“My guy.” Lol.) — Mikie

Biden is clearly "your guy" here that you're arguing is the obvious choice.

Doesn't matter that you've been condemning Biden all these years, he's clearly "your guy" come election time. He so you're guy you don't even consider third options to express your "condemnation" of him.

You do see the basic problem here? That you're not only advocating voting for someone you condemn but that you additionally claim that's an easy choice.

No: I provide one example (and then many others), gave evidence, and have acknowledged your apparently one-track issue (war) many times, both here and for years on this forum. — Mikie

Well I seem to have missed where you navigate even that one issue of war, much less all the issues in some cohesive argument.

Feel free to just cite it if you've done the work already.

My criticism here is that you haven't done that work, you've just stated your opinion with one example. Which is not an argument. You can argue your example is true (obviously even a single example could be false), but that doesn't then transform your mere claim of an opinion into an argument.

If I claim one company is better than their competitor in literally every product, obviously just focusing on one product doesn't create a sound argument. If the companies have a lot of products then obviously it will be a lot of work to actually argue one company is superior in literally everything, it's of course easier to just focus on one example you feel there is genuine superiority and then continuously repeat the claim that there superiority in everything and that's obvious.

It's called propaganda.

Now if you're not consciously propagandizing but are just really, really dim enough to be enable to see the light of obviously valid criticism, then maybe sit down and actually think things through.

True, Trump will go after "your guy" but Trump going after corruption in the democrats would be actually really good for the democrats long term, rather than continuing to be wedded to the corruption.

Of course there are short term negative consequences of Trump, as he's a terrible candidate for president, but so too are there negative consequences of Biden, as he too is a terrible candidate. It's 4 years, (outside nuclear war, which seems to me Biden is far more likely to start) there's only so much damage Trump can do, and cleaning house and finding actual leaders of merit would be of immense longer term value to the left.

Furthermore, you seem to agree that Biden and the neocons have terrible policies in Ukraine, likely to just keep starting more wars (as that's their main thing), whereas, empirically, it is reasonable to assert that Trump doesn't start more wars. It's also Trump's nature to stabilize the US government's appetite for more war because no one is quite sure what Trump will do in a big war (generals who want a war can "count on Biden" and the neocons but they can't necessarily count on Trump in the same way). 4 more years of Biden and the neocons starting more wars could have pretty disastrous and long term consequences.

So, if you're a good faith actor, go think about these things and seriously evaluate your claim that the decision is easy.

The situation is difficult and complicated and good strategy is not easy and obvious, and it is simply false to claim there are only two choices (but even if there were only 2 choices, there are some good points for Trump; the argument that Biden should be rewarded for genocide because Trump would also commit the genocide, just harder, is pretty weak; I'd actually argue Israel is going hard now precisely because they fear they wouldn't own a Trump presidency, he might win and may discipline Israel simply because it would be popular to stop seeing so many dead children and parading war trophies, or then make it clear the US wouldn't join a bigger war and Israel would be on their own).

Simply stating Biden is better than Trump on all issues — boethius

So you’re just in imbecile? Got it. My bad for engaging. Have fun with your straw men. Bye.

It's only through voting for a third party that corruption will be held accountable. — boethius

How does voting for a 3rd party (that has zero chance of winning) hold either the winner or loser accountable? Ross Perot received a whopping 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Walk me through how Clinton and/or Bush were held accountable (and for what)?

Sorry, that’s “not an argument.” :rofl: Too bad for you!

The ability to criticize is a precious right. — NOS4A2

Criminal defendants forfeit some of their liberties, as noted in the Appellate court ruling:

"after indictment, criminal defendants are frequently subjected to 'substantial liberty restrictions as a result of the operation of our criminal justice system.'"

there is little to no evidence these threats even occurred — NOS4A2

The Special Counsel's filing on that appeal listed a number of instances in which these have occurred (see pages 3-7). Trump's attorneys did not dispute these allegations.

Simply stating Biden is better than Trump on all issues
— boethius

So you’re just in imbecile? Got it. My bad for engaging. Have fun with your straw men. Bye. — Mikie

LOL. It's like he's writing a Monty Python sketch.

Speaking of imbeciles. :lol:

Edit: sorry, that was mean. I’ll just put you on the ignore list— have fun with your future Tweets. Bye!

Well that was bizarre. Let's hope Mikie doesn't retreat from every indication he's not being civil.

:D

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

For the other trumpstains on this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573

I came here with the intention of asking if he is still orange, and this is the very last post I see on the thread. Hilarious, though I didn't really laugh.

LOL. ↪boethius It's like he's writing a Monty Python sketch. — AmadeusD

John Cleese once explained that when he started in comedy his of the world was that it was mostly sane and if we just made fun of the small part that insane it would get smaller and eventually go away, but then he started to realize that the world was mostly insane and there was a small island of sanity that was always getting smaller. A true prophet.

But this little recent exchange is a good example of where my mission to develop strategies to deal with bad faith actors comes from. It's difficult enough to advance a debate constructively between legitimately good faith interlocutors, so when bad faith propagandists run amok it's a just a total disaster.

That’s not an argument.