I have thought about this statement for several days and it strikes me as a perfect parody of what some people think.

Are you completely cynical and pulling on people's reactions or do you have any skin in the game? Do you want something for yourself and yours or are simply amusing yourself?

About a quarter way into Life And Fate by Vasily Grossman. I would have to be him to describe what it is like.

If all this turns out to be true it's just another instance of corruption in Trump's opponents and the justice system. — NOS4A2

Are you suggesting an abuse of power like this:?

NEW YORK, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Donald Trump cannot assert presidential immunity from a defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday, dealing the former U.S. president another legal setback.

Ecce homo.

It is reasonable for them to do so. I measure that against my desire to be a human being as I see fit.

Are you referring to people arguing for some version of the status quo because of particular circumstances?

Were the causes reasonable? — jorndoe

Is that to be measured against what people might reasonably expect for themselves or some degree of freedom that they have no control over?

I grew up when using the word was a concordance with the past and present danger of discrimination. My parents raised me to resist that, even if it caused me harm.
I sort of get how the use is a source of expression for new generations.
But it will always be a betrayal, to my ears, of what so many people fought so hard to resist.

I would feel triggered if it did not sound like a Philip K Dick scene. It should play softly in the background of the place nobody will claim as their own.

Thanks for the update and hope he is feeling better.

Surely the outcome of the later case will be materially relevant to the appeal, would it not? — Wayfarer

Trump is not charged with insurrection in that case. The statement given is:

Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full. — Jack Smith

As the question of eligibility has been raised by States in their different processes of determination, there has not been a Federal set of laws established that States have to recognize when judging upon facts. When the 14nth Amendment was written, the insurrectionists were not hiding from the charge but proudly spoke of their service to the Confederacy.

Now you have the people who made the 1/6 action happen shaking pom-poms for the day or denying responsibility for it depending upon which room they happen to be in.

The wind blows through the empty diorama, causing the rope of Mike Pence's gallows to swing and twist alone.

I accept that you are done with this but have to ask,

Where did they go?

That is not central to the claim you have made about wealth.

Did those leaving have all the money?

I get the idea. How does that actually happen in a place like NYC?

The irony is that the big Democratic sanctuary cities are losing high income tax payers to be replaced with homeless and welfare subjects. — jgill

Those cities are challenged by the influx of poor people. On what basis should they be seen as replacing people?

Which text are you quoting?

Well done. Plenty to think about.

Whether Heidegger was right or wrong to describe Nietzsche as producing the last metaphysic is a question here. Is the ground of personal being wrestled with here or are conditions not so easy to approach?

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch. — NOS4A2

This explains your indifference to culture war issues regarding civil rights and the interests of those influencing the makeup of judicial appointees. Those issues have a direct bearing on who has power in communities. Trump has been a very good boy in that regard.

To act as if this was not going on is to misunderstand the support for Trump. Your vision of politics excludes the simple ingredient of perceived self-interest.

I am not sure how or if it fits into the questions surrounding history but there is something visceral about Nietzsche's reaction to Pascal. The idea that another person could have lived a different life.

It is easier on the ego of those of Trumps' critics to say that Trump has "mislead" or "deceived" people than to consider the possibility that many people already are that way, with or without Trump. — baker

For a number of Trump voters, being put in a "basket of deplorables" by H Clinton was a critical factor in their support. But there were others who gladly wore the "I don't care" sweatshirts.

Seeing the contrasting reactions suggests that a coalition of different views amongst the supporters had more to do with the results than critics assuming a common connection that was not there.

Your facts are appeals to authority. Deep down you know how obsequious it is. — NOS4A2

The sources you use rely upon what they credit as reliable witnesses to facts. It often sounds like you are working for some of them.

The ready contempt is bountiful there. If what you are doing is different from that, how can a reader of your comments know that?

The odd thing about the situation is that there is no overriding context of law on the Federal level to place a judgement made by a State into.

The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions are essential to what degree Trump is considered a 'viable candidate'. The decisions will require a profound change of law if the 'electorate' does not agree. Change of that sort takes a lot of time.

What's more, those who suffer from mental disorders may not be insane, but could be individuals in the purest sense, because they are by nature isolated from society." — Vaskane

This runs into the problem of what isolation might be. Your description tells a story about it.

Conviction can't be required, because insurrection isn't a crime (Congress has passed no law against engaging in insurrection). Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment spells out a penalty for engaging in it: ineligibility for office.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher. — Relativist

The gap is there. The authors of the amendment seem not to have imagined an insurrectionist(s) who would act like they are not one in some places.

With Maine also striking Trump from the ballot, maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will come up with more than a due process objection which you pointed out is quite possible. With States having undergone interference from a national party organization in the electoral vote process, it would be helpful to recognize how that is wrong if it is to be distinguished from insurrection. If the Electoral College is to continue, it needs a basis upon which States can protect themselves from partisan influence.

They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause. — baker

Can you articulate what that cause is? Have you associated with a range of Trump voters where this lack of simple bias has been demonstrated to you?

On the face of it, you assert a unity of purpose while denying that it exists.

Adam Serwer expressed my thoughts above regarding the conservative Supreme Court better than I did:

In theory, originalism is committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning as it was understood at the time of adoption. This should lead to legal outcomes that liberals prefer sometimes and outcomes that conservatives prefer other times. In practice, it has most frequently been an undead version of the supposed “living constitutionalism” it rejects, a method of rationalizing and using history to offer a patina of legitimacy to the preferred outcomes of the Republican Party or its key constituencies. This reality has become more and more clear to the public since conservatives on the Court obtained a 6–3 majority, and began to reshape society on the basis of right-wing whims and obsessions.
Originalists are not supposed to rule based on the impact of their decisions, a tendency they derisively refer to as “results-oriented judging.” Instead, they are merely supposed to ensure that the law is implemented to the letter, as it was intended to be. Indeed, all of the self-identified originalists and strict constructionists in the conservative intelligentsia should be demanding this provision be enforced as written, damn the consequences. If these labels had any meaning for most of them, they would be. — The Colorado Ruling Calls the Originalists’ Bluff by Adam Serwer

If the Gorsuch ruling is indicative of a consensus, the Supreme Court's present inclination against Federal initiatives could lead to them to letting each state decide by itself; Quite a change from counting dangling chads.

I don't either. I just don't have it all the time. It's not a judgement, it's just the way my consciousness is. I wasn't aware of it until I met someone who had an internal voice all the time. It's through contrast that things come into awareness. — frank

It is through contrast that we can come to realize the differences in our experiences from each other. This sort of introspection is entangled with the language of reporting experience. It is not a denial of unique experiences to question to what extent such comparisons reveal about another life as lived by another. Bearing witness to oneself is not an activity that is guaranteed to give us what is present against a background of what is imagined. Sharing what is imagined is one of the self-evident functions of language.

The conditions of introspection bring into question what the "internal" scene consists of. Does the experience of ourselves pop-up like a prairie dog in a field or does it emerge through development over time?

Attaining the competence to act independently is directly involved in the personal sense of privacy within relationships and exchanges with other people. Being able to speak for oneself is a way to resist some other agent from filling in the blanks for you. Having the ability is learned along with not doing it all the time.

The report of, "not being able to turn the voices off", sounds like it inhibits a person the way over-deliberation of a plan interferes with performance during the work carrying it out. It is natural to ask what is fundamental and necessary to a person and what are activities that can change.

It's not like this would stop being true if he won the primary. — flannel jesus

This brings in a state's right question. If the decision is upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, that court limiting a state's power to repeat their decision when the general ballot is drawn would require a contortionist fit of legal reasoning to come so soon after whatever gets validated by a ruling on the primary ballot.

The weight given to each state's prerogative to administer the election will become greater if the Supreme Court supports the ruling.

Donald Trump is barred from Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot, the state Supreme Court rules.

That should give the Supreme Court something to look forward to.

I don't look at 'internal discourse' as an excess of an activity.

Talking too much limits perception. That is a condition we can observe. Personal conditions are both too close and too far.

But do these limitations tell us anything about thinking through language?

Only some people have it. — frank

There are people who don't use language to think by themselves?

If that does happen, how can personal testimony work as a reliable report of such a lack of experience?

When somebody says: "This does not happen to me", where is the contact point between the diverging experiences? There has to be enough shared experience to point at a breaking point of difference if such a proposition does anything.

If the justification for punitive damages is to stop the injury from being repeated, the dollar amount was not enough.

How absurd that judgement might be needs to be assessed in the context of the differences between criminal and civil law, especially as that regards the application of Tort law. The distinction between compensation and punitive damages is still a loose ball in U.S jurisprudence as explained in this SEP article on Theories of the Common Law. The matter is described there as:

This entry examines philosophical accounts of tort law, distinguishing its obligations from other types of private legal obligation, and distinguishing its characteristic remedies from the punitive responses of the criminal law and from administrative regulation. It focuses exclusively on tort law within common law systems, that is, legal systems descended from English law, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States. Other legal systems, originating in continental Europe, are usually described as “civilian” systems. They have detailed civil codes covering many of the same issues as the common law of torts. Some civilian systems share many doctrinal features with common-law system; others, particularly France, offer fundamentally different ways of dealing with the same set of interactions and the problems to which they give rise. — Arthur Ripstein

The purposes and justification for distinguishing compensation from 'punitive damages' is easier to measure when the damage is 'in kind.' The Dominion suit against Fox, for example, gave ways to calculate monetary loss. The case was settled so no punitive damages were involved. Punitive damages often become an issue when paying compensation by itself does not stop the defendant from injuring the plaintiff again. Dominion must have satisfied themselves on that score.

The Giuliani case involves monetary consequences that are difficult to calculate. The harm and fear along with the burden of disrepute imposed upon the life of the plaintiffs are incommensurate with any particular financial penalty. If the defendant does not accept that an injury has occurred, the only instrument left to get something from them is with money.

The need for the incommensurate quality of injury and redress is because it is something the defendant can elude responsibility for altogether if not applied. A common example is making the cost of repeating the injury too expensive for an agent to write it off as an expense incurred in the course of doing business.

The problem of arbitrary values being assigned by juries is an ongoing matter for constitutional law. Limited guidance and obscure means of calculation bring challenges to fairness and due process. The argument made by Mark A. Geistfeld does a good job of showing how this relates to case law. I agree with his proposal as a way to make this process better:

Even if this damages practice passes constitutional muster, the ideal of due process does not disappear. As compared to current practice, the tort system could adopt a more constitutionally defensible method or determining pain-and-suffering damages by being more true to the constitutional values of notice, predictability, and reasoned decision-making. Such a tort system may also be more secure from legislative reforms like the tort-reform bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in March 1995, which capped pain-and-suffering damages in a section of the bill entitled "Limitation on Speculative and Arbitrary Damage Awards."8 2

As the issue of pain-and-suffering damages illustrates, the tort system can be guided by the ideal of due process without abandoning its reliance on fairness and individual rights. In a rights-based tort system, damages for pain and suffering provide redress for rights-violations. Money is not equivalent with the right, nor can money represent the value of the pain and suffering. These characteristics of the tort right do not imply that there is no method for determining the appropriate form of redress for a rights-violation. Au tort right creates a corresponding duty of care for the duty-holder. To determine the safety precautions required of the duty-holder, the standard of care must monetize pain-and-suffering injuries. To violate the plaintiff's right, the defendant must have breached the duty of care in a manner that caused injury to the plaintiff, making it appropriate to redress the rights-violation by relying on the way in which the standard of care monetizes the injury. Not only does the nature of the tort right provide a method for determining the amount of damages, it also provides the foundation for a tort award that can be securely defended from constitutional attack — Geistfeld

This above is a roundabout way to say that the damages were not based upon what Rudy could cough up. Probable factors include the lack of full acceptance by Giuliani that injury had occurred. His lawyers argued the damage was less but did not argue how to evaluate it. The decision does not look absurd with the latest move by the Mayor:

The judge later ruled that they were false and defamatory. But now Giuliani is pulling a remarkable public about-face. In an interview outside the courthouse on Monday night, Giuliani claimed that “everything I said about them” — the two women — “is true.”

“Of course I don’t regret it,” Giuliani said. “I told the truth. They were engaged in changing votes.”

When it was pointed out that there remains no proof of that, Giuliani responded, “You’re damn right there is. Stay tuned.” — Aaron Blake

If a form cooperation is agreed upon, that means the agreement itself is order of a kind, at least to the extent it recognizes members as equal.

One of the 'live and let live" portions of that agreement is that sovereign nations have limited influence upon coercive practices within other ones. It is hard to see how that sort of permission can count as a model for the libertarian form of life that dispenses with coercion of any kind.

To which states are you referring to? The Westphalian ones?

The agreement to international standards and development of cooperative projects and institutions is agreed to by each member. If they are all one against all, the activity is meaningless.

Thanks for considering it.

There are substantive issues at stake and Talel has every right to point to problems with the law. I was disappointed that he exaggerated his version of the situation to dismiss the merit of the trial.

Through the application of equal rights, individual sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation, it appears a viable model of anarchy has arisen to govern states themselves. — NOS4A2

The sovereignty of "equal members in the organization" is not the equivalent of anarchy such as you depict. The comparison with those national associations and the forms of authority employed by individuals in their community overlooks where Hobbes saw the desire to stop violence as integral to daily life became a common interest amongst many.

This kind of imagery was the personification of the corpus politicum, the “body politic”, as it reigned in medieval political thought. — NOS4A2

The medieval vision was more like Aquinas description of the leader, an artist living in the greater work of the Big Guy.

[101] These are, briefly, the duties that pertain to the office of king in founding a city and kingdom, as derived from a comparison with the creation of the world. — Aquinas, DE REGNO

Not the logic of Hobbes of finding the creation of order through an exchange of permissions and restraints. The deal is struck between men.