You actually think Trump will debate? I'm not so sure, but I do ponder who would be the best debate opponent. Mayor Pete is the most articulate and analytical, but this might result in only a technical victory on points. A debate with Sanders would be a battle between two outsider populists, both short on analytics - and that could result in peeling a few of the disenfranchised away from Trump, while turning off the analytically minded. I lean toward Pete, and anticipate that Trump will make an ass of himself by trying to ridicule Pete's homosexuality.

If something can't be perceived and there are no ways to measure it with tools, can it exist? — Samuele

Dark matter can't be perceived. It's existence is inferred from indirect gravitational effects. Can you accept that it exists?

Scientific theory often predicts the existence of things that have not been perceived, but eventually are detected. Should we assume they don't exist until actually seen, or should we at least accept the likelihood of their existence?

impermanence makes many (perhaps all) of the constructions of meaning actually meaningless. — runbounder

Having an impact that is beyond our individual selves gives us meaning, unless you think our families and societies are irrelevant.

Sure, it's transient - the human race will eventually disappear. Contrast this with a scenario of an eternal afterlife: is there anything we can do on earth (to give us meaning) that will have a long term effect on that eternal state of affairs?

Kudlow: New tax cuts will 'probably come out sometime in September' (link)

Great! Just the remedy we need for the current state of unsustainable deficits. By sheer coincidence, this is planned for September, 2 months before the election.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" — tim wood

Excellent point! For those who haven't googled the phrase: this.

In Trump's case, I see only two possiblities: 1) he wants to influence the outcome 2) he's extremely stupid.

Either of these possibilities show that he's unfit for the job.

No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. — NOS4A2

Here's some potential effects:
-prosecutors wishing to curry favor might give him what he wants
-prosecutors might feel undercut and harden their position against Stone
-the judge may be influenced, either for or against
-the attorney general might feel prompted to review the sentencing recommendation. How often does THIS happen? He obviously can't do that in every case, so this is uneven justice.
- The attorney general might consciously or unconsciously apply more leniency that he would otherwise.
-per Barr: it makes it difficult for him to do his job
-it might have a negative effect on the people working in the justice dept if they perceive this as pressure to go soft on a friend.

It's not totally irrelevant, but I agree it is considerably LESS relevant.

My niece is an FBI agent. She doesn't talk to me directly about anything, but my sister (her mom) has told me that she perceives a huge morale problem in the FBI (she said something like, "who would like to be referred to as 'scum'?). I expect the problem pervades the entire justice department. Regardless of whatever else is going on, it is appropriate for the head of the Justice Dept to at least give lip service to the ideals they are pledged to. It's better than being called "scum".

OK, but would it have been better if Barr had pulled a Mike Pence, and lavished praise on Trump for sharing his innermost feelings? My point is there are worse things he could have said, and I don't know that there are things he could have said that would have been better.

Did the tweet have an effect? — Relativist


It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm reminded of Michael Cohen's description of the way Trump let you know he'd like you to buy him some tie he'd seen. Trump would never directly ask for the tie, he'd just talk about how nice the ties is, and how good he thinks he'd look in it.

Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit. — Noah Te Stroete

That's very possible, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone. — Benkei

I'm not. But I think it appropriate to identify behavior that is at least superficially good. I think one's credibility is damaged when one finds fault with everything the "opposition" does, just as credibility is damaged when one refuses to see fault in anything your side does (like NOS4A2 does).

First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate — NOS4A2

Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.

↪Relativist You believe that smokescreen by Barr? He’s working with Guiliani. — Noah Te Stroete

He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks.
.

That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati. — NOS4A2

A conpiracy theory is:

"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" source

Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.

Credit where credit is due: Barr is does something right...

Barr blasts Trump's tweets on Stone case: 'Impossible for me to do my job': ABC News Exclusive
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

Yes, the question of free will matters - and that's because it serves as the basis for accountability. That doesn't imply accountability is only appropriate if there is LIBERTARIAN free will, it just means that we we are sufficiently free so that accountability is appropriate and makes a difference.

Holding people accountable serves as a mechanism for encouraging proper behavior. That's true even if determinism is true. Our (deterministic) decision-making process will then tend to take the societaly imposed consequences into account.

My point is that it is more rational to accept the possibility that there is a non-physical life after physical death than it is to try to make something out of the nothing that may follow physical death if there is no non-physical afterlife. — CommonSense

I didn't make something out of nothing, I simply identified someTHINGS that you had overlooked: family and societies. And as I said, there is meaning and value for a human life within the context of humankind.. Again, this is not something from nothing. About all you can add to that is that this is a transient impact - families and societies disappear or evolve to unrecognizable forms, over time. And they will eventually disappear entirely. This doesn't alter the fact these are things that actually exist, they extend beyond ourselves, and provide something into which our contributions are relevant. In one sense, our contributions to these transient things is more meaningful than would be an afterlife: if there is a heaven, within which our existence continues, is there any reason to think that any one individual soul has a meaningful impact to that broad, extended existence - wherein every soul that has ever existed, and ever will exist, resides? Is that a society that evolves, for either better or worse, and within which we can make a difference?

Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective. — NOS4A2

You do realize this is a philosophy forum, don't you? I take epistemology pretty seriously. I admit I can't prove all my political beliefs; no one can. You are naive if you think you can prove your political beliefs, or most of your other beliefs. Inability to prove a belief doesn't imply it's invented. Rather, we ought to strive for justification for our beliefs, not proof. Sometimes, the justification is relatively weak - that's a consequence of the sort of information we have available to us. With politics, we have a choice of working with such weakly justified beliefs or abstaining from participation.

Consider the proposition:
S: some Republican Senators are blocking passage of the SHIELD act because they wish to avoid appearing to Trump as being critical of his behavior.

Anyone who thinks such a bill is important can and perhaps should form an opinion about why it's been blocked. This implies judging whether or not S is true or false. Proof is not available, all we can do is form an opinion (which is a belief) based on what seems the best explanation for it, while remaining open to revising that opinion as additional information becomes available. You don't believe proposition S is true. That could me you believe it false, or it could just mean that it's not sufficiently significant to require you to form an opinion. But I wonder if you might just be unjustifiably believing your favorite politicians actions are virtuous unless and until it is proven to you that they are not. That's certainly what it sounds like.

a human being has an individual sentient consciousness, where a society does not have a single physical consciousness. A group of individuals is a family that is part of a society, but the group / society does not have a sentient existence apart from its members. — CommonSense

An individual "sentience" consists of a set of beliefs, memories, and dispositions processed with an intellectual capability. These all change over time. That's analogous to what goes on in a society over time. All are functional entities that persist in time and interact with the part of the world outside itself.

If all sentient life on the earth was destroyed by a comet there would be no society that was aware of the destruction of humankind.

So what?

Otherwise society and family consist of individual sentient conscious beings who, if there is no afterlife, cease to exist on each of their physical deaths.

So what?

I'm guessing you just consider transcendent existence preferable. Sure, it would be. But that doesn't make it true.

It's chauvinism paranoia, and the desire/need for economic growth.

The chauvinism: our way is the best way, and therefore need to encourage everyone else to do it our way. Arguably, our way is better than some others (anyone want to defend totalitarisnism?), and this complicates the analysis.

The paranoia: there are "others" (Russia, jihadists...) who are out to get us, and we need to stop them, by minimizing their influence. Arguably, there ARE some who are out to get us (terrorism occurs), and this also complicates the analysis.

Economic growth: this country depends on economic growth, and this results in our wanting to get stuff cheap, and to wanting to sell our stuff - for which markets are needed.

For me, if the motive cannot be proven to exist, or that this unproven motive played any factor in any action, it becomes really hard to believe. — NOS4A2

Prove? You set the bar impossibly high, and you aren't consistent with where you set it.

This is of course, a common affliction regardless of one's ideology. Sure, some Trump bashers make premature judgments, just like Trump minions did when shouting "lock her up". I try to avoid it. It's part of trying to be objective. Another part is to try and apply consistent principles. You should try to do these things, particularly if you're engaging in discussions with people with different political views.

↪NOS4A2
Do you see no evidence that Senators often avoid criticizing Trump in general, or just in this particular case? — Relativist

I see no evidence that Senators are blocking it “because it would look critical of Trump”, nor that “the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions”. — NOS4A2

It sounds like you accept the fact that Republican Senators sometimes avoid saying things that are critical of Trump, you just don't see any evidence of it in this case.

No evidence? Consider the sort of information available to us for making any of our political judgment: past behavior is a large part of it. Consider some hypothetical bill that will limit access to abortions. We have no evidence of how Ted Cruz will vote for any specific bill, but his past record gives us a reasonable basis for believing he will support the bill.

Republican Senators have frequently refrained from criticizing Trump, and Trump has given them good reason to do so: there's a good chance Trump will attack them (look at Mitt Romney). True, we have no evidence that this is a factor here, but it's as reasonable to assume this as it is to consider past voting records.

Regarding the "net result" - OF COURSE it's the net result, because it's the status quo.

Do you see no evidence that Senators often avoid criticizing Trump in general, or just in this particular case?

I’m only relaying Blackburn’s statements. I would just stress that the suggestion that they are blocking it to allow foreign interference is without merit. — NOS4A2

OK, then Blackburn's statements seem disingenuous.

They're blocking it because it would look critical of Trump, and the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions like the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

The problem with the humankind argument is that humankind is simply a set of all individual human beings, if there is no afterlife it may be true that each generation dies an isolated physical death that negates any assertion that humankind has a continuing existence apart from its individual members — CommonSense

By that reasoning, a human is just a collection of cells, and the cells are just collections of atoms quarks and leptons. That extreme reductionist view is counter to common sense. A human being is something more than a mere collection of particles; it is an organism, which functionally interacts with the world - despite the fact that the actual particles of which it is composed are not fixed.

The same is true of families and societies: they exist, and they functionally interact with other components of the world. Just as a person continues, despite there being an ongoing replacement of component particles, a society continues despite an ongoing change in its constituent members.

↪3017amen
The senator Blackburn’s claim is that it takes power from the states to govern their own elections and give it to the federal government. She further claims the Democrats knew this and knew the GOP would block it, thereby giving them campaign fodder. — NOS4A2

What bill are you referring to? The SHIELD act doesn't affect how elections are run; it just requires candidates to report any contacts made by foreign governments, and extends rules that apply to radio and TV commercials to online ads. The ostensible reason for blocking it was that it infringes free speech, and I don't see how that makes any sense.

A logical argument for meaning and value in human life can only be built on a non-physical existence. It is far more rational to seek meaning in the possibility of a non-physical life after physical death, no matter how unlikely you may believe it to be, than it is to create a humanistic myth attributing positive qualities to that which is nothing. — CommonSense

If there is no afterlife, then there is no transcendent meaning or value to human life. Nevertheless, there is meaning and value for a human life within the context of humankind. Individuals contribute to ther family and society, and these contributions can have an effect that persists long after their death (this is an "afterlife", of sorts).

A theist, I suspect, will tend to respond that this is insignificant, compared to the sort of metaphysical meaning and value they have in mind. That may be true, but it remains just a hypothetical. Perhaps it's one more motivation to WANT to believe in an afterlife, but such wishful thinking does not seem a rational basis for belief.

This is yet another case of the Administration taking actions that appear wrong on its face. As with the others, there's no direct evidence of Trump personally taking action for Stone. This is all that Trump apologists need to excuse Trump from wrongdoing. Their biggest errors are in failing to see the pattern (because each case is considered independently, and dismissed as a non-issue), and applying a double standard (e.g. consider their assumptions of guilt for Biden and Clinton).

BTW, I have one additional fact to add to your excellent analysis: I heard a former federal prosecutor state that in a high profile case, like Stone's, the sentencing recommendation would have had to be reviewed and approved high up the chain of command - likely up to the FBI director. This makes the overruling of it seem that much more anomalous.

Maybe, but my more fundamental point is that language is not just a means of communicating facts - it's also a means of conveying emotion. In this case, the focus should be on what is the most effective way to manage the associated feelings, irrespective of whether or not the words may be intellectually vacuous.

Is saying "nobody's perfect" helpful? — chatterbears

The context in which the statement is made is more important than the statement.

Suppose Mary is yelling at Harry for having made some mistake, and Harry responds, "everybody makes mistakes" or "nobody's perfect". Which one is being more unreasonable? It depends on the circumstances.

Or stated, otherwise, how does one set up a schema to decrease the vagueness of the word phrase "I know"? — Wallows

Most commonly, people mean that they have a high degree of certainty when they claim, "I know". The only way to decrease ambiguity is through discussion - you will not get the english speaking world to change their ways.

Shocking news: Fox endorses Mayor Pete!

I agree it's a cheap clichéed talking point ("They can't run healthcare if can't even rig a small caucus"). On the other hand there's a lot of truth to it. In Iowa you had gross technical incompetence combined with crony contracts and a biased Democratic committee trying to influence the winner. All the things you DON'T want to see in the party trying to take over health care for 300 million people. I'll stand by my original remark. Cheap cliche, sure. Which in this case perfectly encapsulates a more complex and nuanced truth: That the Democrats are the last people in the world I want near the levers of power right now. And it's not just me. A lot of Democrats are starting to notice. I myself am a registered Democrat and just finished filling out my California absentee ballot. I voted for Tulsi. Now you know my politics. I"m appalled at the state of the Democrats and you should be too. — fishfry

Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail.

However, considering this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to apply reasonable epistemology and exercise critical reasoning. It is NOT good epistemology to treat this as a problem in the DNA or developmental environment of Democrats. Analyze what went wrong, identify what can be done to prevent a recurrence, and find ways to prevent it. It doesn't mean Democrats can't do complex projects right. It doesn't mean a public option for health care (or a single payer system) is a non-starter because of incompetence by Democrats or because the complexity is beyond human capability. However, it SHOULD wake everybody up to the fact that complex policy requires (non-partisan) expertise to implement right. It would also be good to educate Democrats in the law of Unintended Consequences/

That this was poor project management does not entail that it was not relevant to the government's or the democrats' ability to properly manage complex tasks or to the problem of moral integrity. — JohnRB

Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one.

Do you mean in principle or just in this specific case? If you mean in principle, I would disagree. It's trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which a specific political party has a political philosophy which itself leads to poor project management. — JohnRB

In principle. Imagination doesn't establish correlation; rather it constitutes irrational prejudice when you apply it (it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is). Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills. 15 years ago, I took training something like this, and I assure you there is nothing in the methodologies or skills that is inconsistent with being a Democrat.

And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to fit in relation to the others. — JohnRB

It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.

To say it has no bearing seems like an overstatement. If taken as a piece of data relevant to the government's (or democrats') ability properly manage complex tasks, it is clearly evidence against their ability to do so. That's not to say that it is very strong evidence. It is, after all, a small piece of data and, in isolation, it could easily be seen as inconsequential. — JohnRB

No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. Quality project management has nothing to do with politics. And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

In 2017 there was a sharp 21 point rise in Democratic confidence in the media. That’s quite the drastic change, especially after a long period of decline, so the self-aggrandizing of the media’s must have been an effective propaganda tool. I wonder if the new found credulity had anything to do with it’s opposition to Trump? — NOS4A2

Trump's use of the Stalinist epithet, "enemy of the people" to describe the media is undeniably polarizing - so to whatever degree there is increased irrational credulity on the left, it's a product of Trump's rhetoric. Nevertheless, who's being more irrationally incredulous: those who refuse to see or acknowledge Trump's daily litany of untruths, or those who call him out?

Sacked Vindman's brother too. Not that Vindman's brother did anything wrong. But facts don't matter. Only loyalty. — Wayfarer

Remember when Trump said Comey lied about Trump asking for his personal loyalty? Since then, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated how right Comey was.

Here's the highlights of your link:

13% trust the media "a great deal," and 28% "a fair amount"
69% of Democrats, 15% of Republicans, 36% of independents trust media.

Conservatives have been bashing media for years, and THAT propaganda has been effective for them, within their clique.

A healthy skepticism of reporting is a good thing, but it becomes irrational when it's used as an excuse to dismiss the inconvenient news that exposes things you don't like. Trump has exacerbated this to the extreme, labelling all negative reporting as "fake". Many of his lemming followers emulate this. In a sense, this has been a brilliant propoganda tool for Trump, but it means they're being played in the worst way.

If you're trying to say that the problems in Iowa are just accidental software deployment issues that could happen to anyone, you are politically naive and not following the up to the minute news out of Iowa. — fishfry

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable.

The Dems want to run health care for 300 million but can't count 170,000 votes in a small state. — fishfry

That's a silly, political slogan that appeals to the ignorant.

I'm a retired project manager and software developer. There are robust ways to run projects and develop software, and there are poor ways. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with it.