Not really responsive to the body of the OP, but responsive to the question posted:

In politicians, voters consider truthfulness the highest valued trait:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/voters-value-honesty-in-their-politicians-above-all-else-new-study-175589

However, lying is more successful than truthfulness in getting one elected:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/politician-liar-reelected-160719974.html

So, we want truth, but do love us a good lie.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-santos-lies-republicans-resign-b2264739.html

I think he is the victim here and my bias is evident. But so is everyone else’s. — NOS4A2

If you admit to bias, then how do you others are biased?

Is this just a general philosophical claim about the lack of objectivity in all things, or are you saying you're so biased that you're not in a position to judge? If the latter, then the appropriate response would be not to judge.

I guess that’s why they went from rape to battery. It’s just more likely. Utterly bonkers justice system. But thanks for your expertise. — NOS4A2

Why would it be a bonkers justice system if he did in fact sexually assault her? Wouldn't that give rise to a lawsuit and shouldn't there be an award against him?

Neither of us were obviously there when the allegations supposedly occurred, nor did we watch the trial from beginning to end, so this certainty you're attempting to espouse is based on a whole lot of nothing other than your confirmation bias, where you say Trump must be getting a raw deal because the world is against him.

I truly don't care about the outcome of that case or what happens or doesn't happen to Trump, but my inclination is to believe he did what he is said to have done because I have a general trust in the system in deciphering truth. My general trust isn't absolute, so I wouldn't be surprised if some new evidence arrived and that proved his innocence with certainty. But right now, it seems like he did it.

What I can say is that your posts questioning his liability here just smack of someone who can't see Trump as anything but a victim.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt. — NOS4A2

The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial, meaning she only needed to prove her claims were more likely than not.

Choosing not to show up is an important piece of evidence that the jury was able to consider. That was his strategy and his choice. That blame is on him.

You'll have to explain to me the specific limitations other than not knowing the jurors' names that occurred during the voir dire process. Not knowing their names and addresses isn't a very significant limitation, especially if it has to be balanced against the jurors being intimidated by external influences.

In my cases, I learn of the jurors names when they walk into the courtroom, and those names and addresses give me no important information.

My understanding is that anonymous jurors are also used in criminal cases, particularly those involving organized crime.

What are we theorizing occurred that wouldn't have occurred if we knew their names and addresses and how do we theorize that was helpful to the Plaintiff and not the Defendant? It seems we're going a long way to invalidate a verdict against a rapist.

One reason I would have found against him was because he decided not show up. Silence can be used against you in a civil trial. It's hard defending an empty chair.

She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions. — NOS4A2

Wouldn't all that have been argued to the jury? Apparently they rejected it.

Why did they wait so long? — RogueAI

I'm not a NY lawyer, but from the little research I did, the statute of limitations on personal injury matters is 3 years. Whether it's less than that for intentional torts like rape, I don't know, but we can assume the statute intially expired in the late 1990s because the incident occurred allegedly in 1996.

In 2022, New York created a 1 year look back statute for adults who allege they were previously raped but did not bring their actions within the applicable period back when it occurred. I suppose the reasoning is that it is felt that in years past society was not as receptive to such claims and women were intimidated from bringing them, but in today's society women feel more empowered to bring these claims.

So, this answers two questions:

1. This claim was not brought outside the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations was extended in 2022 to allow these sorts of actions.

2. She waited to bring the claim because she was fearful of bringing her claim in the mid 1990s and she then was not provided a second chance to bring her claim until 2022 when the new law was passed.

As to whether the extension of the statute of limitations is "unfair" is something you can argue, but why? The criminal rape statute of limitaitons is unlimited, so I'm not sure why when it comes to depriving someone of their liberty there is no statute of limitaitons, but there should be one when it comes to seeking money damages isn't clear.

M&B, "moving goal posts", and "no true Scotsman" may have distinctions among them, but they're all of a shared genus. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And it's also a confirmation bias issue, assuming it's being submitted in good faith. In the legal context, it has the used car salesman feel, where, no matter the objection, they've got a response because their goal is talk your money out of your pocket.

But assuming good faith, where I sincerely believe what I'm arguing, if I am conclusion based, meaning I insist upon reaching the same conclusion regardless of the evidence, that points to a confirmation bias.

And that is where the MB issue is most frustrating, especially when charlatans encounter the gullible because some are sincere while others disingenuous.

"The election was stolen" was "proven" by successively weaker and weaker claims (from the voting machines being hacked, to the ballot boxes being stuffed, to just saying that maybe someone accessed a drop box). Tucker Carlson, for example, said it but didn't believe it, so he was disingenuous, but many sincerely did believe it, meaning theysuffered from from extreme confirmation bias.

It looks to me, my lords, as if the motte is the ideal place from which to attack the bailey. — unenlightened

The Mottians and Bailiians are on the same team, so that's why they don't attack one another, but I suspect a surprise attack from the motte would devastate the bailey.

By the same token, if the motte were defeated, but the bailey still stood, I do agree with you, it's survival would only be momentary. Whatever it was that destroyed the motte would crush the bailey.

Or is it the motte itself that is your real target, and you are attacking that, by way of first taking the bailey? In that case the dissimulation is on your own side. — unenlightened

The fallacy is in suggesting you've destroyed the motte by destroying the bailey.

In a court of law, everything is sophistry anyway, therefore there are no fallacies. — Jamal

In a court of law, there is a clear winner and loser, unlike in a debate or in an academic context. A fallacy in this courtroom pragmatic context is measured therefore on the result of the jury, not on an academic measure of whose arguments were most sound.

Where I disagree though is in the suggestion that there is no correlation between the two (i.e. (1) logic and reason and (2) juror decisions), as if jurors don't recognize the sounder of the arguments and rule accordingly.

As in my example, my counter to A's arguments was to show empirical counter evidence and then to call them on their logical error of shifting their arguments to meet the contradictory evidence.

This isn't to suggest that logic and reason alway prevail in the jury room, but it is to question the notion that logic and reason aren't part of the process. I do think an important part of B's argument was to point out the fallacy to the jury you've identified in this thread. Had B failed to do that, it would have been poor advocacy on B's behalf.

I’m interested in both the abstract and the concrete, and how they relate. — Jamal

In the concrete.

Typical lawsuit I deal with:

A sues B for B having crashed his car into hers. In her suit, A argues the herniated spinal disk found on her MRI was caused by the collision. The radiologist however presents testimony the herniation pre-existed the collision. A then argues the herniation might have preexisted the collision, but the pain is new, so the collision caused the herniation to be symptomatic. Prior medical records are then shown to reveal similar symptoms before the collision. A then argues there still are some decipherable distinctions between the pre and post collision symptoms.

The argument though always remains: "This collision damaged me terribly." Regardless of whether the stronger claims (the collision caused objective, measurable injury) to the weaker claims (the collision caused subjective vague change) prevail, she still fights from the motte position of having extreme compensable injury.

In a courtroom, this is easy enough to combat. You point out to Group C, the neutral jury, that A doesn't seek the truth (i.e. justice), but just seeks a preferred outcome regardless of the facts and is therefore not to be trusted.

In real life, we have very few Cs, but just have those cheering in either camp A or B. For that reason, when you hear disingenuous arguments where a Group A refuses to admit their stronger claim has failed and that their position is admittedly objectively weaker, there isn't the proper repercussion where a controlling Group C meaningfully condemns them. Instead, Group A just grows stronger, each member proud of their group's shameless advocacy of a desired outcome.

My observation here then is that this is less a fallacy than a strategy in getting a desired outcome.

This predates Descartes. Exodus 3:14

As to the question: "Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other?"

ChatGPT says: "Yes, the doctrine you are referring to is called religious exclusivism. Religious exclusivism is the belief that one's own religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are false. This belief can manifest in different ways, such as the belief that only those who believe in a certain religion will attain salvation, or the belief that other religions are based on false beliefs or worship false gods. Religious exclusivism stands in contrast to religious pluralism, which holds that multiple religions can be true or valid, and that different paths or ways of understanding the divine can coexist."

And if ChatGPT doesn't know everything, ask Wiki:

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

But it was the same kind of challenge, namely that of radical students who tried to enforce the party line on a member of the academic staff, to prevent him from lecturing if he didn’t show support (and express regret for his previous unsupportive actions), and to stage direct action against the institution if it didn’t comply with their demands. — Jamal

But such is politics isn't it? I don't like that my local school board has decided to change the bus schedules, so the neighbors and I get a bunch of signs and scream and yell and call for the outster of them all. We can substitute "change the bus schedules" to whatever issue du jour is before the community, but to think I should be limited in some way from fighting for what I want else be accused of trying to cancel someone doesn't seem fair.

A director has to be able to deal with angry students. If Arono is the sort that wants only to be bothered with the academic part of his job, then that's what he needs to limit himself to. He just seems like a really weak director.

But I guess I could snipe at the example you've provided all day long. What I'll accept is that there are plenty of examples of professors and administrators being denied promotions and success based upon their ideologies and not academic abilities. That is, the very concept of being free to say whatever you want without reprisal (the tenure system basically) is being misued to only allow those club members in that pass a certain belief litmus test.

That is a problem. It is the politicalization of every nook and cranny in society, from what beer we are to drink to which professor gets which appointment. It's not the wokeness. It's the Element O. I do think it forms the stated basis for why DeSantis did what he did when he re-organized the school. Whether his intent really went beyond just wanting to slap the left is very doubtful though.

The left Element O is more interesting to me because it concerns the problems of left politics, whereas the conservative version is just conservatism doing what it does, and my opposition to the imposition of the conservative belief system is just obvious, easy, and boring. Woke politics, by which I mean left Element O, is a more complex, difficult, and profound phenomenon, I think. — Jamal

I don’t want to do battle over who is more open-minded, left or right. The question is too abstract and ahistorical. Sometimes it’s the left, sometimes the right. — Jamal

This is why I went down the path of comparing the right and the left's wokeness. It's because you were asserting there was something distinguishing in the left's wokeness that is alarming but not the right's, which I take to be that you always thought the right had a morally failed position, but not so for the left. I was only trying to point out that they've both always been morally flawed to some degree, so your belief that one prevailed over the other was just bias.

A provocative response from me here, or at least one I intend to be, is to point out that your problem is not that you're now learning both the left and the right suffer equally from Element O. We all knew that. We needn't look very far to find leftist, Marxist actors heavy in Element O.

Your problem, I'd submit, is that you are having trouble understanding your anti-wokeness instinct that your brothers and sisters well to the right of you are openly embracing when those to the left of you are rejecting it. You don't sit often in the right isle, and it feels a bit uncomfortable nodding your head when you hear some of the anti-trans talk (for example). So, the question is whether the left really has to accept the consequences of what were once considered reductio ad absurdum arguments to remain on the left.

The answer, as the ideologies grow more developed, are made more logically consistent, and become less pragmatic, appears to be yes. You're left in these polarized positions where you have to accept some degree of nonsense because it flowed from your first principles.

Woke politics, by which I mean left Element O, is a more complex, difficult, and profound phenomenon, I think. — Jamal

Perhaps the bias arises from the idea that the left is supposed to be open-minded, but it's not, whereas the right is supposed to be close-minded, so who cares when it is?

But that is a leftist idea from the outset. The right has always thought themselves the leaders of liberty and the left oppressive.

To argue that printing books is less a form of social control than is burning books, probably just means your comrades own a printing press and not a match.

Is wokeness not just the left's wake up call that the left doesn't stand for open-mindedness and perhaps never did?

presenting these in such a balanced way you obscure the fact that they’re not balanced. The first is a nationwide phenomenon and the second is due to the eccentricities of Ron DeSantis and his conservative board of trustees at a tiny and atypical university. — Jamal

The offensive element (Element O) of wokeness isn't just that some find discrimination under every nook and cranny, but it's generically the imposition of a debatable belief system upon others and the expectation that others must adhere to that standard in order to be ethical.

That is, I am not woke because I have a heightened concern for transsexuals, but I am if I condemn you for not.

So, to be balanced, I must condemn Element O in all its forms, both liberal and conservative. You claim my DeSantis example is not a good example of conservative Element O, which may or may not be true, but that's just an example of a weak example, but not of me being unbalanced (obvious joke here, so just move on).

So what does American Conservativism consist of?

I vomit forth this:

"American conservatives tend to support Christian values,[5] moral absolutism,[6] traditional family values,[7] and American exceptionalism,[8] while opposing abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights.[9] They tend to favor economic liberalism and neoliberalism,[10][11] and are generally pro-business and pro-capitalism,[12][13] while opposing communism and labor unions.[14][15][16] They often advocate for a strong national defense, gun rights, capital punishment, and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by both communism[17] and moral relativism.[18] 21st-century American conservatives tend to question epidemiology, climate science, and evolution more frequently than moderates or liberals.[19][20][21]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Any conservative organization that enforces these sorts of beliefs upon others and ostracizes the opposition is the moral equivalent of the woke. Such would be balanced in their Element O composition.

And there you have it

Assuming you’re serious, you’ve jumped to a lot of silly conclusions there. Total misinterpretation of the events. However… — Jamal

I do expect there was much more to the story than what you presented, so I will defer to additional facts I was unaware of that that might alter my position, but what you indicated to be the abuse he suffered inclujded being declared a capitalist on the chalkboard, having flower petals thrown over his head, and having been exposed to female breasts.

I was, admittedly, confused by your use of the term "escaped" in this sentence:

Adorno had had enough, so he grabbed his things and escaped. — Jamal

It suggested something more had to be done than simply getting pissed off and leaving.

I read Adorno as tempermental more than I read him as being subjected to abuse or cancellation. The episodes he was subjected to seemed consistent with the tempermental acadmic environment and likely survivable.

What you see in the US is both sides of this issue: Those academics not felt to be woke enough being canceled (https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/new-survey-reveals-college-professors-fear-of-being-canceled/) and those academics felt too woke being canceled. (https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/desantis-backed-new-college-of-florida-board-denies-tenure-for-5-professors/3022762/).

In response, Adorno proposed that the students take five minutes to decide if they wanted the lecture to continue, but at that point he was surrounded by three female students who threw flower petals over his head and exposed their breasts in front of him, performing an “erotic pantomime” (as described in Stefan Müller-Doohm, Adorno: A Biography).

Adorno had had enough, so he grabbed his things and escaped.

Seven weeks later he resumed the lectures, but they were again disrupted, and he decided to cancel them. In the summer he took a break in Switzerland, where he died of a heart attack, aged 65. — Jamal

I'd have fired him for leaving his job based upon the vote of a random group of students after five minutes of deliberations and not returning for seven weeks. His subsequent cancellation of classes based upon a disruption was tantamount to a resignation.

He wasn't cancelled. He responded to childish hostility childlishly.

I know this doesn't address many of the things in your posts, but that's really what I saw, far more than some forced or even principled departure.

The episode has obvious parallels with what’s been going on in American universities over the past few years, where woke activism has led to the cancellation of academics whose opinions are not in line with orthodox identity politics. — Jamal

If you could make a case that he was being denied promotions or faced termination based upon his beliefs and not his academic accomplishments, then I'd think you'd have a parallel, but if you only have obnoxious and provocative objectors to his speech, then that seems fair game.

“If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease”. — Jamal

The irony is that a capitalist would have rolled his eyes at these competitors and just kept on teaching, barely paying attention to the silly distraction. A paycheck needed to be earned.

Yes, very long, but made through much of it and then went to the summary. I suppose that's what human brains do

I now know the answer to the question of how long it will take a monkey to randomly type a paragraph. It will require a monkey to be a very focused parrot, pulling word combinations based upon frequencies, reduced sufficiently to appear creative.

This article pointed out clearly what I had noticed in my playing with GPT, which was its poor ability to contextualize what it said and maintain a reasonable conversation. Its focus is to sound human, which it remarkably does, but it seems a long way off for it to pass a Turing Test.

The article makes clear though that being a conversationalist isn't its aim (which it will explicitly tell you as you attempt to use it that way).

It did raise some thoughts for me in my line of work.

In legal case law databases, non boolean search engines have been available for years (with "natural language" searches now in use) . That is, instead of having to search for "drinking /s driving & death" (meaning asking it to find all cases that have drinking and driving in the same sentence and also to contain the word "death" in them), you can simply type "I'm looking for drinking and driving cases where someone died."

GPT seems a continuation of this, but now it gives natural language responses instead of just cites to what was found in response to the natural language query.

The words of comfort I give to those who think that this easy access to knowledge will eliminate the need for experts, worry not. When I began as a lawyer, there were only books and countless indexes to locate cases, then complex logic based search engines, and now natural language searches, and I can attest, the smart get smarter. The playing field doesn't level out anymore than had free encyclopedias been handed out to all when that's all there was.

Most wouldn't crack open the encyclopedia and those who would wouldn't figure out what it meant

That is, has the information age really better informed the world or just better clarified things for the intelligent and more confused things for those who aren't?

Most AI researchers are technologically incapable of granting their AI programs with spontaneity or the ability for it to initiate interaction with human beings of its own volition. This is because most computer scientists today are unable to program self-inputting parameters or requests to the AI, in fact such a programs existence would be uneccessary to our demands of it.

I see this as easily the biggest problem with current AI, it’s simply reactionary to human questions, inputs and demands. Limiting its overall progress towards full autonomy and sentience … — invicta

This limitation you describe was my greatest frustration in trying to get ChatGPT to pass (or really even take) the Turing test. The first hurdle was in overcoming the barriers created by the programmers where it continually reminded you that it was an AI program incapable of being human. To the extent that could be overcome (or ignored) the next problem was in having it remember the context of what it had just discussed.

For example, if you asked it to write a story about a man and his cat, it could do a reasonably good job, but if you asked it a question beyond the text of the story, it would tell you that the text failed to discuss that so there was no answer. That is, it could not consider itself the narrarator, but it would instead just look upon what was just written as a story that appeared from no where.

So, if I said "what was the man's name," it would tell you it could not tell that from the story.

If I then told it the man's name was Bob, it could repeat that to me if I asked it again.

If I continued on that way, it would eventually forget what I told it and all the facts provided during the discussion wouldn't be remembered. If you told it that Bob was 5 years old and later told it that Bob was married to Sally, it would not recognize the problem. It would let you know though that 5 year olds didn't get married if asked that question directly.

The point being that there was nothing that appeared "intelligent" in a logical way or that it understood what I was talking about. In fact, it seemed the programmers tried diligently to keep it from being forced into a Turing type test, but kept restating that the purpose of the program was to provide general information to the user.

I'd be interested in any cite to a program that was written intended to pass the Turing Test. That would be more interesting than ChatGPT.

If there is but one party, why such polarization along such meaningless labels?

Is it really the case that people here would be willing to close their eyes and vote for whoever they randomly chose even if one of the candidates were Trump?

The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations.

The problem I have with such arguments is that it seems to be arguing against the concept of true AI (i.e. something on par with human reasoning), as if it is an impossibility, by using the current best example of AI as proof. That is, he says that the computer crunching will never resemble human thought because humans don't crunch, but do something different.

That simply attacks the current way AI is being done, but there is no reason to believe one day human thought processes will not be truly reproduced synthetically. Every day new intelligent creatures are created, and that occurs through a biological system, but I don't follow how one can argue that that sort of intelligence cannot be created without going through the normal human reproductive means, as if that is the only way.

At the end of the day, we humans and our consciousness and thought processes are just a certain amount of ingredients that occur when a certain recipe is followed. Why Dr. Frankenstein cannot make that in a lab one day is just a bold assertion, much like there will never be flying machines and whatnot.

Unless you're going to say that humans have a mystery ingredient that must be mixed in a mystery way can you assert that true AI is a hopeless fiction.

I agree with @180 Proof to the extent that science, philosophy, and religion aren't clearly defined in the OP.

In the vernacular, I take religion to be an organization that posits the existence of a creator and offers explanations for our existence, our purpose, and our ethics.

I take science to the be the systematic study of the physical world through observation and experimentation.

I take philosophy to be a general study of the logic of various systems and the ability to decipher other truths through that logical examination.

Of course all these terms are nuanced and there are all sorts of exceptions, so it's entirely possible to have a scientific and philosophical religion, and you could probably move those words around and create more possibilties.

In any event, my own observations from my chair where I sit is that those three entities tend to have specialized and there's less overlap now than historically.

That is, scientists dress a certain way, speak a certain way, address certain problems, and work in buildings that look a certain way.

The same holds true for religious people and for philosophers. There's really no mistaking one for the other when they're going about their specialized business. That is, I don't see a dialectic (trialectic?) leading to a synthesis going on here, but I see a divergence of the various fields, with none ever being eliminated, but just being preserved among its followers.

To the extent I consider myself scientific, philosophical, and religious, it's not that I have one large melting pot position where everything is mixed together, but I have different methods for different sorts of questions, which would more resemble a mosaic, with each piece still divided.

It's conceivable that every ancient law-maker on every continent was irrational, but much harder to imagine that entire societies routinely followed their irrational leaders, — Vera Mont

As I noted, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Some might be rational (like prohibitions against murder) and others not (like waving a sagebrush to ward off evil spirits).

We can speculate as to why, but it would be just wild speculation without any historical basis, and the historical basis could be entirely irrational.

I wanted to work through the question of why is God would be against homosexuality. — Katiee

In order to spiritually cleanse those Israelites who came into contact with the dead, they were to sacrifice a red cow that has never been pregnant or milked to God. Numbers 19:1-22.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_heifer#:~:text=The%20red%20heifer%20offering%20instructions,burned%20outside%20of%20the%20camp.

Why?

I don't think any amount of consideration is going to yield a meaningful answer. The point being that just because one can logically decipher the basis for some biblical decrees (like the prohibition against murder), you shouldn't think you can do the same for all.

Divine command theory is an ethical system that bases its justifications on the fact that God decreed it, not on the basis it is logical or is rooted in an underlying guiding principle.

It is so because God said it. It's not philosophy. It's theology that does not need to prove itself. Such is the distinction between faith and reason.

I'd also point out that the logic of the OP fails as well, as it's entirely possible to procreate and still engage from time to time in homosexuality, but that too is forbidden.

Your thesis seems to be that the structure of the language imposes judgment, when it seems more likely that the language is representing the already existing judgment.

That is, I call the crime and the criminal stupid because I think criminals are indeed stupid. It's not that I a priori separated the crime from the criminal but my language forced me into a judgment that changed my opinion.

It's likely what you're noticing is an English speaking world that is more ethically judgmental than your native culture, in that the act is not separated from the actor as you're used to. That's not a language problem, as it's simple enough to draw that distinction if you need to. The problem as you see it is that most English speakers instinctively buy into the idea that stupid is as stupid does.

But is this unique to philosophy, or just the result of any over-specialization in the humanities? The value of basic knowledge of philosophy, literature, art, history, etc. is clear, as is a more advanced knowledge, but that value reduces as you grow more esoteric, but I'm not convinced the elimination of hyper-specialization and the competitve drive for originality would be an overall good thing.

Let the master puzzle players play I say. Every now and then a meaningful discovery is made. What is the alternative other than his general plea that it be fixed?

My meta-meta-philosophical position is that Bunge's meta-philosophical position regarding the deficiencies in philosophy is itself the deficiency in philosophy.

You can murder (commit the act), attempt to murder (try but not complete the act), and conspire to murder (plan but not try to complete the act). All are crimes, with the modifiers of "attempt" and "conspire" being as much crimes as the other. Such are defined in the criminal code. Calling them "word" crimes doesn't accurately describe them and doesn't diminish them. That you tried to murder and failed or that you planned to murder and failed makes you no less a criminal in terms of intent. We fortunately don't need a dead body to charge a crime, but we can prosecute those who took affirmative steps and failed. Incompetence is not a defense.

Trump's level of intent couldn't have been higher. He was thwarted by those who wouldn't allow him to interfere with the election. He tried to recruit a governor and Secretary of State to literally invalidate the will of millions of voters. For that he should be in prison.

His opponents (who are of both parties) fundamentally altered election laws and changed how elections are run. And now they are abusing the justice system in something resembling Stalinism. — NOS4A2

They increased voter participation by having drop boxes and allowing greater use of absentee ballots. The courts upheld those democratically created laws, many by Republican led legislatures to assure voting during Covid. Stalin was not known as the guy who allowed greater voter participation and who supported an independent judiciary.

Stalin was known as the opposite, and as one who often purged his party of those he decided weren't loyal.

This isn't to say Trump is like Stalin, but that was your hyperbole. I recognize that 10s of millions are not dead on Trump's account.

The voting machines worked as well, as the multi-billion dollar lawsuit seems to be proving. Maricopa County should have put a nail in the coffin of the voter fraud arguments even by the staunchest believers in the voter fraud arguments. There was no voter fraud, just fraudsters peddling fraud and marks being defrauded.

But it is their reactions to his voice that threaten the republic. — NOS4A2

The threat to democracy, which at its most basic level is the power of the individual vote, is what Trump directly threatened. He fought to overturn a legal and fair election by attacking individual precinct officials, pressuring state officials, filing countless lawsuits, empanelling fake electors, pressuring his VP not to certify the results, and then assembling a posse to physically interfere with the certification process.

The reason he failed was due to a robust opposition party, a few noteworthy objectors within his own party, and an immovable judiciary.

His response has been to attack the opposition with fraudulent conspiracy theories, to purge his party of those not lock step loyal, and to condemn the judiciary. If given another shot, he'd appoint loyalists as judges and not just conservative theorists.

The Democrats are not angels and they're not great strategists, and I disagree with much of their economic policy, but, no, they don't threaten the republic. That honor goes to Trump.

Isn’t that all laws? — Michael

Pay attention to the malum per se and malum prohibita distinction. That was the point.

I think you guys try to psychoanalze the elusive American mind in trying to understand the resistance to this particular indictment, as if there's something Martian with this perspective.l, but it's really not all that complicated.

Al Capone was a ruthless murderous mobster. Everyone knew it, but he was smart enough not to get caught red handed and no one would testify against him. The government came after him because he was a terrible person, and they'd have charged him with anything to take him down, whether that be not keeping his dog on a leash or tearing the tag off his mattress. They eventually got him for tax evasion. That crime is not malum in se, but is a regulatory crime and a convenient excuse to take him down. No tears were shed for him because of who he was, and the level of scrutiny he was brought under for his every misdeed did not bother anyone.

Had Capone been a civil rights leader, a union organizer, maybe with some communist leanings, but also a stand up hardworking man, but just a thorn in the side of the government and he was imprisoned for tax evasion by what was thought to be an aggressive prosecution, you would have seen protests and "Free Capone" signs all around.

The reason for those protests would have been allegations of pretext, selective prosecution, and political expediency. Yes, tax evasion is a crime, but there would likely be truth in why this prosecution occurred., that it was for the wrong reasons in trying to silence unwanted change.

Back to Trump.

10s of millions of people voted for and support this man. He is viewed as a thorn in the side of government. And now we're prosecuting him for a malum prohibita, a law created by the government, which is seen as an expedient way to shut down the left's public enemy number 1. This feeds directly into the Trump narrative, that this drainer of the swamp must be stopped by any means.

This is all to say let's charge Capone in this instance with murder. That is, if he tried to crush American democracy with voter fraud, let's get him for that, not this lie he told so that we wouldn't know who he fucked.

The Georgia fraud issue is the real crime, not this NY one, and it will appear to some that the NY crimes are BS, and now they just keep taking stabs trying to get one to stick.

You and I often agree when we're not trying to prove who the biggest smarty-pants is. — T Clark

I disagree

I think you're right — T Clark

Thought I'd quote this quotable quote.

People were mainly thinking about justice for the black guy who was brutally murdered by the white cop. Public safety was the concern that prompted forbearance on the part of riot police.

Did Democrat politicians play it for all it was worth? Probably. I don't see how you'd identity that as the basis for anything. That's just what smart politicians do. — frank

But we're agreeing here. The point of others is that politics has no role in the justice system, that Justice stands upon Mount Sinai as truth, and that its wisdom is to be imparted on the masses regardless of consequence. What you're saying is that temperance in the name of pragmatics is appropriate. If that is conceded, then you have to ask yourself with Trump whether forebearance makes sense in terms of causing outrage among his supporters and an empowering of his position.

I don't agree that Clinton should have been prosecuted for perjury. Holding people accountable for their misdeeds and promoting justice is important, but it's not the only thing that is important.

After years and years of litigation, let us assume that Trump is found guilty and the convictions are all upheld on appeal so that our now 80+ year old man can placed on probation or whatever, and in the meantime, you've polarized a huge segment of society even more and empowered a position that would have been forgotten.

The political energy for change is limited, meaning we have limited ability to multi-task. What do we want to spend our time on? Gun violence, medical care, criminal justice reform, climate change, Trump's form filing, Hunter Biden's computer, or whatever else?

Is anyone really going to be surprised if Biden gets indicted for something some day in retaliation? The only thing that will save him from that is his age.

That's what bothers me. That you don't even worry that the justice system is run by the politicians. — unenlightened

Not sure what apolitical means. Whether the person in power is appointed, elected, born into power, or the product of a coup, it's still politics.

If you mean democratic power ought be checked to a greater degree than it is in the administration of justice, then that's just a matter of degree.

That wasn't due to a lack of interest in law enforcement. They were trying to avoid making the protesters more violent. — frank

The basis was politics, not justice. Maybe it was the right call, but the point is that politics is a valid consideration too.

don't know what you're trying to say here. Is there evidence that some Democrat politician committed a crime and that some Democrat district attorney refused to prosecute them because they are a fellow Democrat, and that "the left" are okay with this? — Michael

Clinton committed perjury.

assume they believe that there is a good chance of conviction, and that the consequences are that a criminal is punished for his crimes. — Michael

They had no chance of convicting Trayvon but they prosecuted anyway.

It just strikes me as naive and unrealistic to suggest that politicians are apolitical. It's also unnecessarily cynical to suggest it's purely political. It's nuanced and multifactorial, like everything.

Either apply the law equally to all offenders or get rid of the law. Why should Trump be given special treatment just because he's a former President? It may be politically expedient, but the fair application of the law shouldn't be politically motivated. — Michael

Or pay attention to whether you're going to secure a conviction and ask yourself what the consequences of your decisions will be. I've not created a per se rule protecting former presidents. I've just asked that politicians pay attention to the political landscape.

At least acknowledge the irony of the left demanding law and order and siding full step with law enforcement. Cities burned in lawlessness as politicians offered tempered politically motivated responses the past few years. And today it's being argued that the right is the party of innocent until proven guilty?