Mail-ins not only skew Dem, they skew 2:1 or more which is huge. There's a red mirage in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which will clear over the next few days. — Baden

Objectively speaking here, I'd choose to be Trump based upon what the numbers show. If you're Biden right now, you ain't got em where you want em.

If Trump wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, I will declare the result invalid and whine about it the next 4 years.

Yeah, Ciceronianus the White @Hanover, what do you think? Lawyer material. :snicker: — Benkei

I'd love to weigh in to this decades old debate of whether Bush lied or if he were just profoundly mistaken, but I don't think I can read these 8 pages of comments (so far) and get really up to speed with the subtleties of this debate.

Generally, I think we can all agree that GW's legacy would be redefined from what it is today had there been WMD found in Iraq. He'd be seen as a Rambo like character who cut through the international bureaucracy and inaction and saved the world from mass death, a real life dragon slayer. Instead, he has to justify whether he's violated international law in waging this war and then he has to present the difficult argument of "well, even though my reasons were wrong, my result was good." I suppose some really bad guys got a stake through their heart, some average citizens were freed from a life under Hussein that was worse than the turmoil introduced by the war, but whether the world is an overall better place because of the war requires we impose all sorts of idiosyncratic values on an entirely foreign people we spend very little of our time thinking about.

The truth is that if the war were able to be judged a complete debacle from the most objective of standards, I don't think that would move the meter much as far as US sentiment goes. As long as the US can convince itself that it relied upon information it had good reason to believe accurate, and as long as it can convince itself that it's intentions were righteous, the war was just.

And this isn't meant to be overly condemning of the US. This whole event occurred at the heels of 9/11, the US was a powder keg waiting to explode, and we had a satanic character mocking the US and its inspectors, pretending to possess WMD. The ineptitude of Bush was child's play when compared to Hussein, and I have no difficulty heaping the lion's share of blame upon Hussein.

The extreme polarization in the US leads to a lot of screaming and yelling, but no difference day to day. Maybe the Democrats will increase my taxes 2 to 3% but maybe my healthcare premium will drop the same amount. I really can't say I'm better or worse under Trump versus Obama. I'd need a microscope to figure it out.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what makes a Republican not a Democrat and what makes Trump a Republican. I think which side of the aisle you sit on determines it.

Thus, the apparent - perhaps substantial - injustice: in the U.S., Police Murder nonwhite (& poor white) citizens With Impunity. Re: Breonna Taylor, Walter Wallace, Jacob Blake, et al — 180 Proof

Even assuming the US criminal justice system is riddled with racial injustice, nothing you've said leads me to believe an aggressive prosecutor would secure a conviction in this matter. That is to say, it's entirely possible, and even likely, that the prosecutor's instinct in this case to limit the charges against the officers was correct, even if he hid behind the grand jury to do it, and even if he is a closet screaming racist.

Prosecutors are bound by ethical rules that prohibit them from pressing charges they can't win, even if that deprives the public of feeling there is justice for the victims by just having a trial. I'd submit you overestimate the comfort anyone will receive from an acquittal.

The real issue here, which I think might be being missed, is that the grand jury is meant to be a protection for the accused, protecting that particular person against frivolous prosecutions. The protection afforded is minimal because the prosecutor retains complete control over the grand juries and decides what they will hear and attempts to persuade them how to decide. It's a protection against the unfettered power of the state.

Grand juries were never meant to assure the general public the right to have all potential crime investigated and then have them decide who will be prosecuted. It's not a general protection for the average citizen to be sure criminals are prosecuted. The Constitution's provisions related to grand juries (the 5th Amendment) protects an accused from the state, not the general citizenry from prosecutors who don't wish to prosecute.

What we have in this case is a prosecutor who realizes, as a public official, that his boss (so to speak) are the voters and he doesn't want to do something that might get him fired. So what he's done is instead of just refusing to prosecute the cops, he's manipulated the grand jury to do his dirty work and issue a no bill on the most significant charges. The prosecutor's efforts to blame the grand jury for the lack of indictments was exposed when a grand juror pointed out how little information she was provided.

All this means is that the prosecutor and the prosecutor alone thought the charges would not lead to a conviction, and he used the grand jury as cover. We need to stop worrying about what the grand jury did or didn't do and what it knew or didn't know. The question is whether the charges could be successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This prosecutor thought not. He should have just said that.

Can you force the prosecutor to redo a grand jury process? — Benkei

You can't force a prosecutor to prosecute. They are elected officials, so the pressure you can exert upon them can only be political. Not only can you not require a prosecutor to prosecute, he can dismiss (nolle prosequi) whatever indictments a grand jury hands down.

For those very limited instances where you can force a public official to act (or not act), you can read up on writ of mandamus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus#:~:text=Mandamus%20%28%22We%20command%22%29%20is%20a%20judicial%20remedy%20in,and%20in%20certain%20cases%20one%20of%20a%20

Weighing in on this as a poster, and not as a mod, I'm curious as to what is the philosophical import of NDEs and what question you're attempting to answer by exploring NDE evidence. Some possibilities are:

1. Epistemological questions: Do those who accept NDEs as evidence of life after death have a valid epistemological basis? That is, have I used the same criteria to conclude the existence of life after death as I do the existence of other events in the world? If I haven't, then is that good enough reason to reject that NDEs prove the existence of life after death?

2. Metaphysical questions: Are NDEs scientifically explainable phenomenon? If they are, then why are we discussing an interesting, yet philosophically irrelevant, medical phenomenon in a philosophy forum? If NDEs are not a scientifically explainable phenomenon,, then what is their import? Does the existence of NDEs implicate there being disembodied souls that exist post-death and therefore possibly provide empirical evidence for Cartesian minds or general support for substance dualism?

It just seems like somehow you've got to tie this interesting phenomenon back into a philosophical question, and unless you can do that, you might as well be asking questions about any unusual medical condition.

As to the epistemological question, the below is a professional philosopher's take, not as it relates specifically to NDEs, but as to reincarnation. The question is the same though, and that is whether the physical evidence we've gathered offers sufficient basis for the conclusion of life after death. This professor thinks so. I don't find him overly convincing, but he at least sets up a philosophical question.

Thanks for posting that. I saw the movie just a week ago or so.

When I first saw the movie I was struck by how things haven't changed so much in in the past 50 years, with race relations still so volatile. Assassinations and violence were worse back then, but I think that's mostly because the authorities today realize that it's better just to let things fizzle out than to directly combat them. Where they used to beat in heads with batons, now they let cities burn until the protestors tire. Charges aren't even pressed anymore, so no one gets their stage.

One thing that has changed, to the extent Hoffman's antics were characteristic of yesterday's left, is that today's left is smug, chastising, lecturing, insulted, and offended. They are the refined and intellectual and bewildered by the coarseness of the right.

What has happened to that creative zaniness, where you expect at least one protestor to show up in a multi-colored Cat in the Hat hat, another on stilts, and at least one naked guy with gold chains? There are no more bongo drums, poetry recitals, or prayers to made up gods or goddesses anymore. That's not to say that the protests of the 60s weren't deadly serious and meaningful, but there has been a full circle shift in the persona of the rebel, where it began as the audacious and impudent school boy and now it's the prim schoolmarm at its best, to an outraged rioter at its worst.

No, there's no whim to it, it's to understand the various nuances different interpretations offer and then select the one that is most in accordance with the dictates of public conscience of the current times. That might mean a different interpretation of the same text at different times. — Benkei

How is the zeitgeist determined that will dictate which interpretative scheme you use? This sounds like you're getting close to allowing public sentiment to enter the judge's decision making process, which seems antithetical to the concept of objective justice.

Edit: or even combine them. But these things are obvious if you're trained in the Netherlands. A judge here is expected to research the different interpretations. — Benkei

I know, things are soooo much better in the Netherlands.

I find adhering to a mode of interpretation as the interpretation idiotic. — Benkei

You've got to choose some mode, and you ought to be consistent, not jumping from mode to mode as the whim hits you, unless you choose to adhere to the whimsical mode, which is good because it leaves them guessing.

What the mode ought to be is a matter of debate, but I assume you have to provide some reason for your preference, and whatever those reasons, you ought be able to defend them. The basis for a restrictive method of interpretation is in protecting the democracy from an overly ambitious group of 5 people who wish to impose their wisdom on the entire populace. I don't think that reasoning is stupid, and I think there is some wisdom in letting the citizens decide. Even though the democracy does drag its feet in bringing about change, I'd submit its the legitimate way to do it.

I dropped my absentee ballot for Biden-Harris this morning. Came home, showered vigorously, made lunch, and for the last 4 or so hours I've indulged in a hard bop happy hour while watching restless Atlanta grind on toward an unspectacular overcast evening. We're all fatigued senseless; but in 8 days, at least, timely results from Florida, North Carolina & Arizona (& maybe Pennsylvania) will bring the beginning of the end of this MAGA dumpster-fire shitshow on election night. — 180 Proof

I visited downtown Atlanta a few days ago to eat lunch with my son at Tech, and traveling from my humble abode outside the perimeter, it's as if I left the country I lived in and entered another. And to be clear, I've lived here since I was born and have worked downtown and roamed there too many times to count. Maybe it's changed for the worse or maybe I've forgotten, but it was disgraceful, with the garbage literally overflowing unemptied garbage cans onto the street and abundant loitering. The bright yellow Ferrari parked on the street didn't make much sense, or maybe it did.

That is the dumpster fire shit-show and it needs to be addressed. Trump isn't the one to do it. The best he can do is scare me that it's coming my way and protect my right to defend myself against it, all the while further marginalizing those I'm being protected from. And let's not pretend Biden will do any better.

However, to say that something can be "unconditional", that is, that there are no adverse conditions that can change the conception of such a concept by the human individual, is something that human nature itself already debunks in itself. — Gus Lamarch

If we can arrive at a suitable definition of unconditional love, then we can then search the world for its existence. If you're saying that it's an impossibility by logical operation in terms of what a person is, then we needn't search the world for it. I'd submit that if we use the term "unconditional love," we could probably find out how we're using it and what we're referencing, which would likely allow for some allowances of some conditions. I would imagine that even in the most extreme examples of acceptance of others where the love seemed entirely unconditional, you could hypothesize a situation arising involving such malice and injury where the person might rethink their love.

So, if I love my child throughout his life regardless of the ups and downs we might experience, that would entail unconditional love as far as I'm concerned, even if we could hypothesize a situation where I might have questioned my love had it occurred at some point.

I don't remember talking to you about my personal life. In fact, I don't even know why I would do that. — Gus Lamarch

You said unconditional love didn't exist, so you did in fact tell me that within your personal life you have never experienced unconditional love.

We agree to disagree! — Gus Lamarch

If you say that unconditional love doesn't exist and you're able to reach an agreement as to how you're defining "unconditional love," then you've not submitted as much a philosophical inquiry as an empirical one. So, if someone says that they have experienced the unconditional love you've asserted does not exist, then in order to maintain your thesis that such does not exist, then you're left telling them that they're confused as to their feelings, despite you're having no access to their feelings. What this can only mean is that you yourself lack such feelings and you don't find it possible that someone else should have the feelings that elude you.

So what we know is that you've never experienced unconditional love. I know this because you told me. Would it not be as absurd for me to tell you that you have in fact experienced unconditional love even though you told me otherwise as it is for you to tell a poster he hasn't experienced unconditional love when he says he has? What are you accessing that allows you to know he's not telling the truth?

Given that, I don't see in what world originalism can be a subset of textualism if the principle of intent is paramount in one and to be totally ignored in the other. — Benkei

From Wiki:

"The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view."

"Bret Boyce described the origins of the term originalist as follows: The term "originalism" has been most commonly used since the middle 1980s and was apparently coined by Paul Brest in The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding.[1] It is often asserted that originalism is synonymous with strict constructionism.[6][7][8][9]


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a firm believer in originalism
Both theories are associated with textualist and formalist schools of thought, however there are pronounced differences between them. Scalia differentiated the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that he uses a cane means he walks with a cane (because, strictly speaking, this is not what he uses a cane means).[10] Scalia averred that he was "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be"; he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute".[11]"

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

I take this to mean that it's impossible to interpret text without some reference to what the original meaning of the terms are. I also see Scalia's distinction between textualism and strict constructionism to mean he does allow for contextualizing any law with other bodies of law and making sense of the whole.

Well, that is the point. You can "abstain," but that saves no one nor anything. Some baby is going over, and you're opportunity to save you're too precious to take. — tim wood

Your consequentialist talk disrupts my temporarily Kantian mind. Kant says the morally correct choice is to watch the boat sink. Call me foolish, but there is principle behind my madness.

Indeed some do, and for better or worse. And usually to have some effect. But you did nothing - what is that going to achieve?. — tim wood

To the extent someone is listening, they'll work harder next time for my vote.

You consider yourself equally well off with either, and neither better than the other? With discernment like that, no owl is ever going to fly for you! — tim wood

Some problems have no good solution, like which baby should I throw overboard to keep the ship from sinking? Abstaining is a reasonable choice.

Failure of responsibility, failure of duty, failure of common sense. Intellectual and cognitive bankruptcy. Well f-ing done. — tim wood

I simply told the waiter I wanted neither the chicken shit sandwich nor the dog shit sandwich. I chose not to dine. Some burn cities, some carry signs, some dump tea. I leave entries blank on ballots. Patriotism comes in many flavors.

I cast my ballot today, and y'all will all be relieved that as to the presidential race, I voted for nobody, which I do believe will be better than either of the candidates.

don't have any children, but I think you're finding it hard to influence your children. No matter what unacceptable thing they do you'll always love them. But conditional love can foster the notion that what you do has consequences early on in a child, if they do something you'd consider unacceptable you withdraw your love from them. It is a subtle way of raising better human beings. — Konkai

This is either trolling or the worst parenting advice ever.

Isn't it a pre-programmed natural love?
Yes, I also knew fathers and mothers who didn't or couldn't love their children as you do. — KerimF

Whether it's pre-programmed or natural love seems irrelevant to the question of whether it exists.

There is no such thing as unconditional love. It does not exist — Konkai

There are different sorts of love, some openly conditional, like that between spouses where there are certain explicit boundaries (e.g. forsaking all others), and some far less conditional, like a parent to a child. My love for my children is not predicated upon their doing anything, and it's hard to imagine there is something that they could do to totally eliminate it.

Rather extreme language, but at least you two are bang on topic. — Baden

Calling a male a cunt is a European thing. I'd not heard that before, but I always like to learn new usages. I've heard it to be used to women of course, but such is considered nuclear. To a man, it'd be comical. It'd be like calling a woman a penis.

Maybe if it was intended as an insult? — Michael

If intended to insult is defined as insult, then the statement "I intended to insult you, but I failed" would be a logical contradiction, but it's not, so your explanation isn't correct, correct?

I've been called a cunt several times but not felt insulted. — Michael

Was calling you a cunt insulting if no one was insulted?

That something is insulting doesn't necessarily mean I'm insulted. — Benkei

What does this even mean, that there is some hypothetical reasonable man that would be insulted by certain comments, so it is therefore considered objectively insulting, but you have a thicker layer of skin than that person, so subjectively you weren't insulted?

That's so confusing. Can we just go back to the way I thought it to be to where if someone says "that's insulting," I can just take that to mean "I'm insulted"?

I'm just saying that if you think treating people equally and fairly is important you aren't contributing. — Benkei

I treat people equally. Gotta work on the fairly.

Trump's lawyer, preparing for a blistering campaign:



You guys following this story? He thought she was 15 years old.

It reads like you dismiss what you don't understand, do so flippantly, which indirectly is insulting towards me but still think 4 is important. — Benkei

You're so sensitive. My flippancy is based upon my obvious irrelevancy in these matters, regardless of the level of my comprehension. That is to say, even should I have an understanding on these matters as profound as yours, I'd still realize that the scope of my control doesn't extend far beyond my cul-de-sac.

Interesting choice of words if you really did think that. More likely you just pay it lip service as I also remember how you reacted when Trump won and I pointed out half of the country didn't and that they should still be heard too. That was "tough luck" because you were all too happy getting your way. — Benkei

Oh, good Lord, let's now explore the mind of Hanover and see what my true motives are. If I really insulted you, I apologize. I apparently took lightly what you take seriously.

As a lawyer you're trained to sound reasonable but you're a ball of emotional contradictions. — Benkei

Not so much. I mean I do appreciate the compliment that you see some evidence of lawyerly training and that I can at least sound superficially reasonable, and I'll even concede an inconsistency from time to time, but "ball of emotion" probably doesn't describe me.

Also, your reaction to 3 would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. — Benkei

Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel. I read that on a fortune cookie once. I got the sweet and sour chicken. It was meh.

My point on #3 is actually true, which is that I don't think an information apocalypse is a concern, We have access to more information than ever before, which includes my ability to converse with you, a regular guy from across the globe. That is a major development in the history of our world. When I was a kid, we had a set of Encyclopedia Britannica, a globe I could spin in circles and see where my finger landed, and some well intentioned teachers in suburban Atlanta. There were a handful of channels on my television I could watch cartoons on, and a few anchormen at night who got together and reported all the same news stories. For sure there are now those who will peddle misinformation for their own agenda, and it will take a more sophisticated public to ferret out the good from the bad, but to pretend the narratives of old were accurate when information was better controlled is nonsense. A book I'm reading right now, White Trash, makes the point in a different context to be sure, but the point is well made that the information we've always had, even as to the most basic of foundational societal facts, has always been recited from an agenda.

Take it up with Paula Jones' lawyers. They wrote the definition to be used for the deposition. — Michael

How does that definition not include oral sex?

I thought the reasoning was that Jones' lawyers wrote "For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." and that receiving oral sex doesn't satisfy that definition. — Michael

I'm not sure where you're from, but typically oral sex is received for cleansing purposes and not to receive pleasure.

Certainly enlightening. I'm surprised it's not more specific.

What worries me is that we don't worry about the same things. I'll give you mine:

1. How to escape debt fueled economic policies;
2. Global warming;
3. The information apocolypse;
4. Promoting equality and fairness;
5. Overfishing;
6. Pollution;
7. Biodiversity.

Or to summarise: corporate capitalism. 2 and 3 are long term problems that require the most immediate action in the short term. 1 and 5 are medium term and the rest is long term. — Benkei

#1 - doesn't concern me because I don't think whatever economic disaster we face in the future will have anything to do with this. What'll probably kill the economy is some made up virus.
#2 - doesn't concern me because I fucking hate the cold.
#3 - We know more today than ever before. My information circle now includes those from people from all sorts of fucked up places.
#4 - I agreed with.
#5 - I used to prosecute kids who caught too many trout, so I did my share. What have you done? Fish doesn't taste that good anyway.
#6 - I take out my garbage. If we all did like me, there wouldn't be this mess you talk about.
#7 - That's what zoos are for, to protect failing creatures from Darwin.

If that's what you value, you're not only off the Trump train, you're lying on the tracks. — Baden

As an aside, I find that I can diligently respond to dozens of posts daily, but I can't seem to answer my emails.

[

Also, since we're on the topic of lying under oath, should any public official, say a Supreme Court justice, be impeached too for lying under oath? Honest answers please. — Mr Bee

It's like asking how we should sentence those who steal. It depends. It depends on what they stole, how they stole it, why they stole it, and maybe how much they've stolen in the past.

So, I presume you won't vote for the guy who used his privilege to fake an injury and dodge Vietnam and then referred to those who did sacrifice themselves for the flag as suckers and losers (in John McCain's case, on camera)? Hard to think of anything less patriotic than that. — Baden

If personal character were the primary driver in who I voted for, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but it's not. I guess you just wanted to point out that Trump sucked, which really wasn't in question. But, sure, if I were a staunch conservative with unwavering religious or moral beliefs that a person be of high character to hold office (as Romney does), I would probably vote to impeach Trump (like Romney did).

Trump's offensiveness does sometimes have unintended liberal consequences.. Had he not been such a complete motherfucker, McCain wouldn't have dragged himself from his literal deathbed thousands of miles away to vote down Trump's attempt to repeal Obamacare.

My point regarding patriotism was more of a social statement describing what brings people together in terms of finding and having common ground and engaging in some activity that expresses that unity. It's the same sort of thing that happens in churches and temples every day, regardless of how truly devout you might be in the doctrine..

Out of curiosity, what do you believe to be the biggest challenges in the short (1-2 years), middle (3 to 10) and long term (10+) for the US? What policies do you think are needed for that and what are the Democratic and Republican proposals there? If you're on the fence on who of the two candidates are personally worse, then what about policy? — Benkei

I was just watching the new movie documenting the Chicago 7, dealing with 7 college aged kids protesting the Vietnam war who ended up being charged with federal charges of inciting a riot. I take comfort in the fact that things have been worse in our country in terms of discord, but less comfort in knowing that we seem doomed to repeat this history over and over.

So, to your questions, I think the biggest challenges to this country deal with e pluribus unum, which make this country great and a leader in so many areas, but also provides a massive challenge, where we continuously have to remind everyone that their allegiance ought be to the common good and not the various tribes that make us up.. It's for that reason I support the showings of American patriotism you likely find nauseating. Some simple shared ideology and ritualistic practice is required to keep this merry group of folks working together. Maybe it's stupid we all must stand for the national anthem, but up until now maybe it might've been the most central thing we had in common, but I digress.

We need to treat people fairly and equally. We do that by trying. We're not trying. We need some leader who actually tries to bridge gaps. Trump is horrible at bringing people together, but the Dems are no better. Schumer had to have a stern talk with Feinstein for making a positive comment about the Court confirmation hearings and having hugged Graham. If you're civil to the other side, you get chastised and demoted within the party.

Those are the biggest challenges. We need leadership who can at least present the message that we're all in this together. In my local elections, the Republicans are against the expansion of heavy rail subways into my county, but the Democrats are for it. For some reason building roads is Republican but not laying tracks. The distinctions between the parties are not based upon any real principle as far as I can see. If Trump supports it, it's Republican. If Pelosi supports it, it's Democratic. Surely someone can just say this and get someone to listen.

Maybe I answered your questions, I don't know. I could just say healthcare or something like that, but that's just symptomatic of a bigger problem.

Taking advantage of his family name to get a well-paid job? No, it's not a big deal. And certainly not something that gives a reason to not vote for Joe. How is it any worse than Trump giving a White House job to Ivanka? — Michael

Because Burisma isn't a White House job, but is a job at a company that is so corrupt that the US and EU were trying to clean it up.

The left's position is that Burisma was corrupt, that Obama had tried to stop the corruption, that Shokin refused to investigate Burisma, that Shokin himself was corrupt, and that Biden's firing of Shokin was at the request of Obama and the EU for proper purposes. They agree Hunter probably shouldn't have sat on Burisma's board, but it occurred after the Burisma investigation was dormant and it was without Joe's knowledge. They also say the leaked computer information might be a Russian set up.
— Hanover

This is actually false. It was Shokin who blocked the Burisma investigation among other investigations. — Benkei

It's not false. I noted above that Shokin himself was corrupt, and I do know he was accused of seeking bribes, so that's why they wanted him out. Bloomberg reported that the Burisma investigation was not moving forward at the time Hunter joined the board. Regardless, that's majorly fucked up that Biden's son sat on the Board of a company that the US and EU had determined was so corrupt that the US withheld $1b in order to fire the investigator who was refusing to investigate it.

But I get it, you think the Hunter/Joe connection is tenuous at best and that they are two adults living independent lives and that Joe knew nothing of Hunter's involvement and massive financial windfalls he was receiving.

Could be true. I sort of know what my son is up to, but maybe his family is really different from mine. Like if my son rolled up in a Ferrari and told me he didn't need me to cover his college tuition, I'd probably just think good for him and not ask any more questions. Don't want to pry.

You just can't seem to accept that whatever Biden did was acceptable and legal, where with Trump we know he does plenty of illegal stuff. That has everything to do with ideology on your side and little with the facts. — Benkei

There's a difference between "acceptable" and "legal." Whether Trump is worse is an interesting argument where can try to figure out who sucks more. I'm less ideological than you make me. I've gone back and forth on who to vote for here, and the corruption stuff doesn't really move the needle much for me because I just assume they're all corrupt. If Biden comes out firmly against court packing, I might consider him. My biggest problem with Trump is that he lacks any leadership qualities and instead just fans the flames where ever there is conflict in order to create a stark choice for the voters. A leader sees cities burning and he tries to put the flames out, regardless of who's at fault. I think a country without burning cities is better than one that with, which seems obvious, but no one really seems to want to see that and the deep cultural divides addressed, much less resolved.