In Georgia, another Republican lawsuit was just struck down. The Republican party sued, arguing that the absentee ballot boxes (that you can use if you don't want to mail in your ballot) should be locked after 5:00 pm each day because that's the time the early voting polling places close. Yes, they actually sued to stop late night drop off of ballots. https://www.ajc.com/politics/judge-dismisses-gop-lawsuit-to-limit-georgia-ballot-drop-box-hours/XHGJZ5UTPRBPJBMP3G63SYVX3E/

My new theory: whites synthesized covid to kill off nonwhites. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm not sure why this stupid comment. If the data shows disproportionate deaths to a certain group, the risk factors (e.g. lack of access to health care, pre-existing poor health, genetic factors, occupations typical of the group, etc.) ought be assessed.

Your comment is in fact so non-responsive and such an obvious and poor attempt to inflame, I wonder if your presence in this discussion is in good faith at all.

the GOP had any balls (ridiculous idea, I know) they'd impeach him on Article 25 as unfit for office immediately, and let Mike Pence preside for three weeks. — Wayfarer

Articles of impeachment, a vote in the House, and a trial in the Senate all over the Christmas and New Year's holidays just so he could be removed a day or two early?

Do you think Pence could push through healthcare reform during that those couple of days of presidency?

I don't think the GOP has applied pressure on it's members to contest the election. — Echarmion

Trump exerted great pressure on Republicans to contest the election:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/21/trump-pressure-campaign-overturn-election-449486

Conspiracy theory is not even a defensible scientific concept, it is a metaphor, a figure of speech designed to belittle certain ideas that you don't like. — Rafaella Leon

The distinction between a conspiracy theory and a scientific theory is that the former holds that a theory is provable by hypothesizing motives and the latter by presenting empirical facts supportive of the theory.

For example, if you believe the US election was stolen and you take as proof of it that there are all sorts of malevolent forces opposed to Trump who would stoop to any level to steal it, and that alone constitutes sufficient proof it was stolen, you are a conspiracy theorist.

If you reject the theory that the US election was stolen because there is no empirical evidence of it, you are of the scientific mindset.

You are correct that being called a conspiracy theorist is belittling, but that's because conspiracy theorists rightly hold a place of low esteem, largely because their epistemological standards are stupid as shit.

that so? Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it. — Merkwurdichliebe

The statistic used to show increased number of deaths during the pandemic doesn't depend upon the subjective classification of the death by the reporting agency. The "excess death rate" is all that needs to be looked at. That is, the data shows that since the identification of covid-19 being present, the US had 300,000 more deaths than would have been predicted based upon prior years' data. https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/20/cdc-data-excess-deaths-covid-19/

Ignoring all subjective interpretation of cause of death, you're left with a huge spike in death. That correlation certainly ought raise eyebrows, especially since we have no other explanation for the spike and we do have on the ground accounts of covid-19 causing death.

We have a statistical anomaly showing a death spike and data supportive of what is causing it. What is your alternative theory explaining this spike?

Even now FoxNews and NewMax have begun retracting their claims regarding the Dominion software being designed to flip the votes in Biden's favor because Dominion threatened to sue for defamation.

When Bill Clinton came appeared on international TV and admitted he lied, that I accept. But who knows what hapenned, there was no evidence presented after all. Just reliable testimonies. — FreeEmotion

There was his semen on her dress. Only then was there the confession.

I don't compare Clinton to Trump though. Diddling the intern is really bad judgment. Trying to dismantle a democracy for your personal ego is extra.

Deprive a man or woman through your exploitation of the ability to reasonably provide for their own tomorrows and you have taken on that burden yourself. — tim wood

But I doubt you'll concede that if the homelessness doesn't result from exploitation, then society has no burden to cure it. Surely you could have all sorts of homeless people in a perfectly respectful, non-exploitive system, but the suffering by the homeless would not be reduced simply because it was a just consequence of their poor decisions.

My point here is that I suspect you find homelessness unacceptable period, regardless of whether the economy is capitalistic, which means your real argument is that no society should force the poor to go without shelter, regardless of whether their homelessness is caused by their own freely made poor decisions.

Maybe there is such a duty of providing societal charity, but I fail to see how that duty arises only under certain economic systems, which means the objection isn't properly directed at capitalism, but at those who refuse to fulfill their moral obligations.

Yes, but, of course, there was never anything to the cases. They were, on the one hand, clownish attempts at pacifying Trump's ego and, on the other, a fundraising scheme to con his gullible supporters out of hundreds of millions, most of which will go straight into his pocket. So, who knows? This may continue regardless of where we are in the process and the continued futility of the cause. — Baden

There are two theories we can work from here:

1. The Republicans all know that Trump lost but they're willing to pacify him by pretending otherwise so that they don't face his wrath. They realize that these efforts to interfere with the election results will amount to nothing, so they see no danger in attacking the core of American democracy, and they see their support of Trump working to their political advantage. This theory casts the Republicans as pragmatists with little conscience, but it does not suggest the Republicans would actually do something that mattered, like issuing a court ruling in favor of Trump, refusing to certify the election, or casting their electoral college votes inconsistent with the voting results.

2. The Republicans really want to overthrow this election because it is based upon fraud, but they are being thwarted by institutional barriers and by a handful of men and women (most notably judges and some Republican elections officials). While they may realize all their efforts to change this election result was a long shot, they truly believe in the justice of their mission.

My instinct is to think it's #1, but #1 requires that I impose my worldview on those of another world. That is, to accept #1, I must assume that no one could possibly believe the election was rigged. That probably is not really the case though. I also don't think that those Republicans who have been complicit in the efforts to overturn the election did so only because they believed their efforts would fail. That is, I think they are pragmatists, but I don't think they chose the road to pragmatism because they instinctively knew their attempts to overturn a valid election would fail so they were able to do as they did with a clear conscience. I think they wouldn't have had any difficulty sleeping if they actually did overturn the election.

While those in the #2 camp are nutjobs, at least they appear to be men and women of conscience. I would like to think that if this election truly had been rigged, that I would be one of those who threw every obstacle in the way of Biden being sworn in.

And so I'm left with the truth, which is that there is no evidence of election rigging and so anyone who says there is or who attempts to invalidate a fair election should be thwarted. Why people might be motivated to argue one side of the other probably varies from person to person, but it's largely irrelevant at the end of the analysis. The question is who do you want in office moving forward: Those who side with the truth or those who don't.

I expect some condemnation from both sides over this. Alan West is a nut job. He previously argued in favor of the Confederate monuments. A pro-Trump, African American Confederate secessionist is an oddity.

Not to brag, but while you were pissing around trying to obtain the perfect pitch, I obtained the perfect smell. It was a cross between unicorn, marshmallow, and sweaty sex, with just a hint of keylime pie.

My life dream is Winterbury Bed and Breakfast. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

My dream, because everyone wants to know, is to be able to sit around and dream all day, or not, or do whatever I want to do. It would seem that a dream better than owning a quaint B&B would be to stay at a quaint B&B for free forever, right?

But when the country hit the most dangerous place to visit list at #1 — Sir2u

Do you live in Afghanistan?

Yeah, well, I'm forced to listen to your Christmas music.

I guess the Titanic had a vagina then? — Michael

It surprises you that the Titanic had a vagina?

Which seems a fair issue. A fair settlement, though perhaps not easy, is either count the votes, all of them, or a run-off election. — tim wood

I'm all for fairness, which is what the courts are used for, not generally this rarely used law that permits legislators to act as judges. Legislators are really good at advocating for their constituency, and asking them to put aside their biases seems an unreasonable ask even should the legislator be of pure intent.

There's certainly a value to philosophical pessimism. I don't believe in progress as much as the next because of philosophical pessimism — Benkei

It seems we're a better lot than we were overall 1,000 years ago. It's a historical question I suppose, but it seems we do a better job not bludgeoning each other than we did back then.

This is a different sort of pessimism you now discuss, which is one where you've lost hope in mankind, expecting cycles of peace and violence with no forward movement, with us now being fortunate enough to live in an apparent peace cycle. The pessimism of the OP was that life is nothing more than suffering, so it'd be best if we just stopped producing new generations of sufferers. These two different types of pessimisms do share the similar trait of suckiness, so neither would go under the Christmas tree as a particularly good thing to have bestowed upon you.

Even if we were to accept an optimistic outlook in the first regard, meaning there were actual evidence that the world is evolving toward Nirvana, I don't know if that would resolve the pessimism of the second regard, which is that life today isn't worth living. That is, just because I know that generation 10 will be wonderful, does that really justify generations 1 to 9 living horrible existences, considering that 1 to 9 will be dead and won't see the benefits of their suffering. To argue that future happiness of a distant generation is a virtuous goal is an interesting concept because it posits inherent value in the enterprise of being human. If you're willing to assert as a foundational statement of faith that humanity is worth it in the distant future, why not just assert that there is something inherently sacred about every human life that is achieved in each life without regard to whether we are meandering toward a better state of humankind or not.

I accuse you of cherry picking the article, which in our present political climate I consider egregious and without plausible excuse. The issue is not the count but whether some votes that should have been and should be counted, have not been counted. I think you're too smart to miss the distinctions and differences between the two issues, but whatever your reason(s), they are on their face ignorant. Care to try to account for yourself? — tim wood

No, the issue is whatever the challenger makes the issue and the power of the House is anything from ordering a new election to deciding which of the two candidates to seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Contested_Elections_Act

I agree the principle of certified elections being final should hold in the Dems case too. She ought to suck it up. I don't see anything remotely like a comparable attack on Democracy though. So, my emotional disgust is mitigated in proportion. — Baden

Well, you can't decontextualize this either. For a Democrat whose party currently holds the moral high ground on this issue, now is not the time to waver in your principles and provide your unworthy opponent an opening to argue that being undemocratic isn't a violation of principle, but instead it's a matter of nuance that Democrats know better how to apply than Republicans. Ffs, fight the good fight.

And for the record, I now know what "ffs" means because you always fill me in on all the hip terms the kids are using.

The rhetoric certainly isn't apples to apples. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But this wasn't what I was responding to in @Pfhorrest's post. He said it was not apples to apples because all the Iowa candidate wanted was a recount, but that was incorrect. She was appealing the election to the House. I've not suggested that the Iowa candidate and Trump have engaged in behavior of the same degree, so your itemization of the behaviors of the two candidates wasn't responsive to my concerns. So you know, I did not vote for Trump, do not support Trump, and believe him to be as terrible an actor as I imagine you do, which ought to be obvious from my condemnation of all things undemocratic, which he most certainly is.

Ffs, if Trump lost by 6 votes in one state, instead of tens or hundreds of thousands in multiple states no-one, including me, would be complaining about Republicans taking it to the wire. Your attitude is kind of like saying if a Dem sticks a pin in a Republican, the Republican is justified in chopping up the entire Dem's family with machetes. See how crazy that is Hanny? — Baden

My attitude is that I cannot support anyone who engages in undemocratic behavior. I recognize that Trump's interference with the democratic process exceeds that of what is occurring in the Iowa election. If Trump lost by 6 votes total and he was now trying to over-ride that 6 vote loss by having the Senate declare him the winner somehow, I would see that as very significant.

Anyway, it is possible to be incensed by the conduct of both parties even though one may be worse than the other. My guess is that the Republican will be seated, in part for the reasons I've pointed out, which is that it is very difficult to hold the moral high ground if your best argument is that you're unprincipled, but at least you limit your violations to a degree less than your opponent.

Extremely narrow wins are reasonably subject to recounts. Asking for a recount on a win by a single-digit number like that is not out of the ordinary or unreasonable.

Trump is asking for more than just recounts in elections that were won by much much larger margins.

It's apples and potatoes. — Pfhorrest

The recount was already conducted and the Republican win was confirmed and the result certified. This is an appeal to the House to hear evidence to determine if the vote was valid. It avoids judicial review and instead puts the issue before a committee chosen by the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

It's apples to apples. It'd be like submitting the presidential election dispute to the Senate for adjudication. How this is Constitutional , I don't know. It seems like a separation of powers violation to me to provide the legislative branch the power to conduct judicial review.
https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/rita-hart-us-house-appeal-marianette-miller-meeks-election-recount-20201202

A Republican from Iowa won a House seat by 6 votes and her opponent seeks to invalidate it by appealing it to the Democratic controlled House. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-iowa-mariannette-miller-meeks-elections-iowa-city-3e6af839aca5c2c802e746d7348d7206

If the Democrats reverse this election result, I take back all condemnations I have for Trump and wish him well in his umpteenth appeal.

If living entails suffering (e.g. philosophical pessimism) then living doesn't cause suffering. Much in the same way that me killing a person doesn't cause his death, killing entails death. Or if I enter a room at noon, I don't cause someone to enter the room at noon. And water, by its mere existence, doesn't cause itself to be wet. — Benkei

I don't think the argument that living logically entails suffering is one anyone reasonably makes. It seems a strawman. Surely one can envision a life without suffering, even if such a life has never been lived. I would think the philosophical pessimist would only need to commit to the proposition that all lives that have ever been lived and likely every life that will ever be lived will be filled with suffering; therefore we ought not propagate life. It'd be like me saying that cold medicine tastes bad. It might be the case that all cold medicine tastes bad, but it's not required that in order for the medicine to be cold medicine that it must taste bad. It's just the case that in every case it does.

That any possible persons, who will suffer more than is outweighed by the good they will experience, outnumber people who will suffer less than is outweighed by the good they will experience. Or in short form "unhappy persons outnumber happy persons". — Benkei

This doesn't do justice to distinguishing between happiness and pleasure and so we are left with suffering being the counter to happiness. This becomes more clear when you provide examples of how we ought to find the sources of suffering so that we can eliminate them so that we can increase happiness. If I suffer from hunger, I'm sure I will be happier if I am fed, but I don't know you've made any real progress toward making me happy in the holistic sense typically needed to truly declare me happy just because you tended to my needs.

What this means is that happiness is not alleviation of suffering and that suffering is not incompatible with happiness. In fact, considerable wisdom, growth, perspective, and gratitude arise from suffering, all of which are traits of someone who is happy.

So the solution is not to retreat from society but to engage it by taking care of our fellow man. Give to charity, get a job helping others, etc. In short, the only moral act here is to support the creation of societies that brings forth happy persons as opposed to unhappy ones. — Benkei

I see this as a stab at creating a formula for societal harmony, but I don't see it as eliminating suffering entirely. I also see this as only half the solution for creating societal harmony. The half you provide is that those who have more should be generous and giving. The other half of this would therefore be that those who have less should be humble and gracious. This societal harmony is achieved I would think only upon recognition that everyone is both of these halves.

My point being that I don't see suffering as demonic, devoid of all light, joyless, and evil. I see suffering as a necessary component needed to fully achieving one's full potential. This obviously means that I'm placing an intrinsic goodness to life itself and its promotion and development. I'm not entirely sure you can avoid pessimism about life if you're not able to posit the intrinsic value of life.

What this means is:

1. Although it is not logically required that every life have suffering, every life ever lived has had suffering.
2. Suffering is required for happiness.
3. Life is intrinsically good and worth living even if one experiences no happiness or only suffering because life is the end, not the means for anything higher.

I think his "instinctive ability" is that he's a realist. He's not burdened with visions of how things should be and so can better see things as they really are. Here's an example to illustrate. — Hippyhead

The theory that he plays into the fears of the beleaguered white man who sees his power escaping as the nation's culture and ethnicity change, so he harkens back to a non-existent time when things were great and can be now be made great again sounds like a better explanation.

The media typically presents itself as a public service, and we typically buy this story. Trump sees through this self flattering story the media tells itself about itself, and understands that corporate media is just another profit seeking business. He "instinctively" gets that the media is not in the news business, they are in the ad selling business, and that their business model is powered by drama. So Trump hands over a non-stop stream of drama and is rewarded by the media with a non-stop spotlight on his every utterance. — Hippyhead

He's the President, so he's likely going to get press whether he carefully submits position papers or he tweets while taking a dump. He's also not selling any actual product, so it's not like he gets paid more the more people talk about him. He also doesn't increase his popularity with the interest he creates, which is apparent from the fact that he lost the last election (even though Newmax has failed to declare him the loser).

What we have is an egomaniac who doesn't care about the national ideals he praises, the religion he preaches, or the people he embraces. He's no different from the left leaning politician who panders to the suffering by saying what they want to hear and doing nothing but gaining whatever power the powerful need to stay powerful.

Trump is no more a genius than is the preacher who cries from the pulpit while he gathers the last dimes from the congregants. Believers aren't stupid, just vulnerable.

There are plenty of really good new ideas:

https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/137775-20-crazy-inventions-you-won-t-believe-what-you-re-about-to-see

I am 100% a more optimistic person since engaging with Schop and pessimistic philosophy. — BitconnectCarlos

And so you see, there is good in everything, even in those who insist there is good in nothing.

Yes, this is a perfect example of the common Nietzschean narrative optimists tell each other. In a world where suffering is inescapable, the only way to make it okay is to co-opt suffering as "good", "necessary for meaning" and the like. It is a predictable move. — schopenhauer1

I took the OP as a probably accurate observation that there is a significant divide between optimists and pessimists. Why the two see the world distinctly is an interesting question, likely involving personal history, psychology, and religious beliefs. There are also pragmatic issues to look at, as in who makes for the happier, more successful, and more fulfilled person. The responses to all of those questions seem to favor the optimist.

I take your response to my post as an unrelated discussion as to whether optimism or pessimism is more philosophically sound, as if you're intent is to try to persuade me of the wisdom of pessimism. You will no doubt fail in your effort to make me more pessimistic, and, in fact, my laboring through your arguments will only convince me of your folly and will make me more convinced an optimistic outlook is best. That is to say your pessimism will only make me and the rest of the world a better place, as it will inform all who may stumble upon you of the misery that befalls the pessimist and they will therefore adopt a more optimistic outlook.

I wouldn't say these particular people are stupid, but they sure as heck are personally invested. — jorndoe

I don't think they're stupid. I think leaders actually lead, which means there are people who follow. If Trump would have said the election were fair and that the solution lies in winning in 2024, then his followers would have followed. I think we'd all like to think we're not sheep and that we all exercise independent judgment, but it's part of being human that people look for the alpha dog to follow. Some of us are better at fighting this instinct than others. It is a very dangerous instinct no doubt, and those who exploit it fit the definition of evil fairly well.

I'm using the definition of Philosophical Pessimism which means that life has an inherent suffering or negative aspect to it. — schopenhauer1

I consider myself an optimist, but that doesn't mean I deny reality and insist there is no suffering. The position is that through suffering much is gained and that the wisdom and accomplishment you gain through struggle are the things of most value to you. The optimism lies in the fact that there is a higher level you will be elevated to as the result of the struggle. That is not to say there aren't things that have occurred that have caused more suffering and evil than they've created good, but an optimist would still be inclined to find the good in what had occurred.

You seem to be isolating your inquiry to whether one should decide to have children or not, which I really don't see central to this inquiry. I would agree that an optimist would likely not be an anti-natalist, but I don't think there is anything inconsistent with an optimist choosing not to have children for any number of reasons.

My sister has just moved to North Carolina, so when I get a chance — Baden

Oh, and you're welcome. So it doesn't go unnoticed, you brought up your sister, and not a single inappropriate comment from me.

Or liars. There's a fucking paper ballot given for every electronic one recorded, for a start, and they match. You might as well claim Biden is hiding in the machine changing the votes by hand. — Baden

They object to the mail in ballots that have now been separated from the envelope bearing the voter's signature, claiming fraudulent ballots have been stuffed in the ballot box.. Like all conspiracy theories, it could be true. If only there were evidence it actually happened, they'd have a better case. Alas, if only.

My sister has just moved to North Carolina, so when I get a chance to see her next, I may just pay y'all a visit too.

Cook up those grits, Hanny! — Baden

I would come visit you, but I think I'd have to quarantine a couple of weeks before you'll let me in public. Anyone can come here. We still openly accept all wretched refuse.

Your question is an empirical one as you've phrased it, and I suppose the term, like any, is used in a variety of ways by different people in different contexts. If I insist upon using it to reference biological sex and refuse to modify it upon request, what have we learned other than that my usage differs from those more open to change?

As it turns out, Lin Wood is a really a nut job. I mean really. https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/11/meet-the-lawyer-behind-the-georgia-election-lawsuit-that-trump-is-obsessed-with/

Many of these judgements are worth reading. They emphasize how utterly pathetic these tinfoil hat challenges are. — Baden

It is actually comforting to know US courts are a bastion of reasonableness. The debates we have had over judges' various interpretative philosophies seem to be silly quibbles in light of this, as none have so far become shills for one party or the other.

My concern is that moving forward, judges won't be chosen simply on the basis of whether they are strict or liberal constructionists, but on the basis of who they wish to see in power.

Trump is probably kicking himself for not having chosen thug judges who would do his bidding instead of egghead intellectuals with curious views on statutory construction, but who otherwise have absolute integrity for searching for the truth.

. If, however, partisan ideology so completely blinds you to the accelerating, self-inflicted, existential crisis currently 'unraveling' America, then, by all means, carry-on with the status quo and, in patrician fashion, ignore the superstorm laying seige to, and battering the gates of, Rome. — 180 Proof

Yes, this is what I'll do.

Yeah, they did a story on the nose thing. — Baden

Not sure why that made me laugh. Politics is so fucked up.

I've not seen the ad you're talking about with Ossoff. The Atlanta Jewish Times (which I'm sure you also subscribe to) had full page ads for Perdue and Loeffler (who's Jewish) who were promoting their pro-Israel stance. Warnock has made some pretty clear statements against Israel, although he's backtracked. Perdue has always played the pro-Israel card, so it'd surprise me if he's gone the other way, but I don't know. Loeffler is a complete crook.

That being said, I also can't vote for Warnock because I was just visiting my son downtown who lives near Ebenezer Baptist Church (Warnock's church) and there literally was garbage strewn in the street from overflowing garbage cans. Surely he has the pull to get the city to clean up his own neighborhood if he actually cared.

I can't do a write in for a runoff. They are the only ones who qualified, so the Gipper is out.