He’ll get more done in quarantine than Biden has done in 47 years — NOS4A2

Right- if watching FOX during every waking moment can be considered "getting things done".

Crossfire Hurricane was set up to investigate whether individuals associated with President Trump's campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The problem is that they investigated the wrong campaign — NOS4A2

Wikileaks published information provided by Russians. Roger Stone coordinated with Wikileaks and lied to investigators. That's pretty strong reason to investigate.

The problem is that they investigated the wrong campaign. — NOS4A2

What evidence is there of coordination between the Clinton campaign and the Russians?

I fear that the whole “it’s dangerous to vote in person” idea is a form of voter suppression, and it’s good to see someone unswayed by it. — NOS4A2

Has anyone actually pushed it being too dangerous to vote in person? I haven't seen any. If it's there, it's been drowned out by the bogus claims about fraud.

That said, the Axios article was useful. We shouldn't just enable people to mail in ballots, we need to also be sure they are filled out correctly.

It doesn’t settle it because “the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”
We don't even know the SOURCE of the allegation. It would not be surprising if the ultimate source is Russia.
— NOS4A2

But given that the Steele dossier was largely sourced from suspected Russian spies, and payed for by the Clinton campaign, it appears that any “Russian collusion” to dig up dirt on an opponent was a Democrat affair.

What's the problem? It's common practice to dig up dirt on political opponents and to utilize whatever dirt is available (consider Trump's use of Wikileaks, not to mention Stone's coordination with Assange). It WOULD be a problem if the formal Russian investigation by the FBI and Mueller were a product of a political witch-hunt, but the IG has already assessed that and indicated it was not.

Suppose the only thing Clinton ever received was Steele's work, and decided to use this against Trump. That would be about as bad as Trump using the low quality information Guiliani obtained from Ukraine. So if you're going to cry foul in the hypothetical against Clinton, you should cry foul in the actual against Trump.

But you have yet to get the memo. Only about one-hundredth of 1 percent of in-person votes are rejected, whereas rejection rates of 1 percent are common with mail-in votes. If your ballot is rejected your vote doesn’t count.

And rejected ballots are on the rise. There go all your votes to the trash bin. Brilliant. — NOS4A2

Rejected ballots do not necessarily get trashed:
The vast majority of these ballots were rejected because voters made a mistake or failed to fill out the witness information, according to state records. A rejected ballot does not necessarily mean the voter is denied his or her vote: North Carolina allows for a process called “vote curing,” where voters are notified that there’s a mistake and given a chance to fix their ballot. But that’s not an option in every state. And even that isn’t foolproof. In Nevada’s statewide primary in June, for example, 12,366 ballots had a missing or mismatched signature, but even after voters were notified to fix it, only 45 percent were successfully cured.

This was from this fivethirtyeight article, which the Axios article linked to.

This highlights the need to educate people on how to correctly fill out their ballot, if they choose to go this route. In the future, we should push for "vote-curing" in all states.

Personally, I'm voting in person on election day to ensure my vote is tabulated on that day.

Biden's performance wasn't memorable, but Trump's was. What a prick!

I cannot understand why Biden is debating — tim wood

Debates are typically good for the underdog, and bad or neutral for the guy on top. Biden's on top, so he could possibly lose votes. On the other hand, he might have lost more votes if he ducked the debates.

What I hope Biden does is to behave like an adult. The contrast will be stark, and the stylistic difference may sway a few undecided voters.

Would anyone care to make any predictions about what we might see in tonight's debate? I predict that fact-checkers will be working overtime tomorrow.

exactly - it senses the presence of something and reacts appropriately. How do you sense without consciousness? — Pop

Chemical stimuli.

This is true but they all started with a simple consciousness, which evolved.Or are you saying consciousness is something that just pops into existence? — Pop

Consciousness is a vague term, aside from the fact that it reflects an aspect of human existence. It surely didn't "pop" into existence. Brains process input from sensory organs and through the nervous system, much of it autonomically. Consider a human body in a persistent vegitative state ("brain-dead") - incapable of consciousness. At least some autonomic brain function continues - and this function entails integrating input from the nervous system and reacting to it. Similarly, consciousness entails the integration of input - input from senses (e.g. the visual cortext processing visual input; auditory complex processing auditory input), plus memories - and integrating these. The brains of all complex animals engage in this integrative function. I think it's a stretch to call it "consciousness" at every step of the way - but at any rate, you'd need define exactly what you mean my the term - specify specific functionality.

This seems like a strange thing to say when it was an 11th month long republican senate blockade which stopped Obama from getting Merrick appointed to the Supreme court. On the grounds that 11 months was too close to an election and that the people's vote needs to factor into the senates choice for the supreme court. That's 11 months that is too close. Obviously within 2 months is a completely different scenario (sarcasm very much intended on that last one) — MSC

I'm as pissed off as you are that McConnell spouted that lie in 2016. In fact, the proximity of the election had absolutely nothing to do with the unwillingness to consider the nomination; it was purely and simply an exercise of the power held by the majority party in the Senate. Similarly, the Senate has the power today to rush through a nomination. Elections matter. Even without the SCOTUS vacancy, there's been a huge influx of conservative judges to federal courts. I hope that unhappy Bernie supporters understand this - because we don't need 4 more years of loading the federal courts with conservative federal judges.

The pendulum will continue to swing as it always does. If Roe is overturned that will energize the left like nothing we've seen in years and unheard of amounts of money will pore like a torrential rain in to the bank accounts of Pro-Choice activists. The media will be clogged with stories of the bad things that can happen when safe abortion is not readily available. Roe caused the pendulum to swing to the right, overturning Roe will cause the pendulum to swing to the left. Back and forth the pendulum will swing for the rest of our lives. — Hippyhead

I agree this is the likely outcome. It's unfortunate the left didn't anticipate this in 2016. My view at the time was that SCOTUS appointments were the biggest issue. It was for evangelicals- it is what got the idiot elected.

There doesn’t have to be a law specifically saying that fetuses are persons if the court just interprets existing laws with an assumption that they are, which thus creates common law saying that they are. — Pfhorrest

Good point - this could happen, but I think it's a worst case scenario. Do you think this likely?

I'm going to bed so I have more to say on this, but it's possible that a new right wing court will attempt to apply personhood on fetuses which would affect the ability of blue states to perform abortions — Maw

Interesting idea, but I'm skeptical they can do that. "Conservative" jurisprudence is not the same thing as conservative politics; it entails narrower interpretation of the Constitution. The constitution doesn't define a human life, and a strict constructionist wouldn't read this into it. However, they wouldn't stand in the way of a state legislature defining life - or the US Congress.

I skimmed a bit of it, and my superficial reaction is that I don't buy such claims as, "Consciousness can be described as a process of self organisation " and "Consciousness and life arose together, as without consciousness there can be no life."

I see no reason to believe such claims. Life is about survival. Survival entails appropriate reaction to the environment. At the most primitive level, it is stimulus-response. An amoeba reacts to primitive aspects of the environment: it senses the presence of nourishment and consumes it. This reflects biochemical reaction, not consciousness. More complex life-forms have more sophisticated sensory apparatus that enable more effective interaction with the environments. IMO, consciousness reflects a complex process for more optimal mediation between stimulus and response.

If I'm not mistaken, every published SCOTUS decision cites Marbury v Madison as precedent for their decision - it's their bedrock. I wonder how strict originalists (like Clarence Thomas, who disdains stare decisis) justify upholding it.

He's blaming Democratic mayors and governors.

He said that if we exclude the deaths that occurred early on in blue states such as New York and New Jersey, then the U.S.A. death rate doesn't look so bad anymore compared with other countries. — Pierre-Normand

A high death rate in blue states is win-win for Trump: fewer Democratic voters and he can blame Democrats.

Agreed.

The question could be reversed: Arguments for God's [non] existence do not have the power to convince anyone God [does not] exist - only [A]theists accept them. Why bother? — EnPassant

I don't thing there are any good arguments for God's non-existence. I also don't think beliefs are formed that way. Atheists like me got there by questioning our basis for believing in God, and finding it lacking.

While people strive for objective truth in philosophy, philosophical arguments can be subjectively interpreted. — EnPassant

Sure, but that makes the arguments pretty pointless. I guess they make theists feel better about themselves - but that's pretty superficial.

LOL! Hi momo! You had told me the screen name, but I had forgotten in. Good luck!

If you're really interested in exploring the standard arguments for God's existence, join the forum at "Reasonable Faith" website. There are links to all the arguments, and plenty of Christians to defend them - and several of us Atheists who point out problems.

Got it - you believe truth is established by majority vote. Setting aside that argumentum ad populum fallacy, this has absolutely nothing to do with the formal deductive proofs of God's existence (KCA, LCA, Argument from Objective Moral Values, Ontological argument).

Really? Why does America have 'In God we Trust" on their currency? Is that not a source or the tools used for the exchange of economic power? — 3017amen

What does that have to do with proofs of God's existence?

So, your point is... ? — 3017amen

My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother?

if I can't prove a proposition in a given system x, that proposition can't belong to that system. — TheMadFool

That's not true.Goldbach's Conjecture is not "semantically empty": all the terms and relations are well defined (prime number, even number, sum). If true and unprovable, it is because the formal system of peano arithmetic is incomplete. That's what Godel's incompleteness theorem is all about: incompleteness = there are unprovable true statements in the formal system.

I can form the grammatically correct sentence "the uncertainty principle is true" with words that occur in theism in statements like " it is true there's no uncertainty regarding god's existence", "god commands us to live by the moral principles he laid out". The uncertainty principle is a fact in quantum physics, a totally different system to theism and insofar as theism is concerned, the sentence "the uncertainty principle is true" is meaningless. — TheMadFool

Godel's Incompleteness theorem is about formal mathematical systems. It has no metaphysical implications. Similary, the uncertainty principle of Quantum Mechanics has no relation to the uncertainty various metaphysical claims.

The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions.
— Relativist

Wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements/assumptions are used all the time to test theories in physics. — 3017amen

I don't understand your point. If you're just saying that it's reasonable to make metaphysical assumptions, that may be - but then it's equally fine to deny those assumptions. Consequently, the arguments are only deemed sound by those who already believe in God. There is no argument that proves God based solely on non-controversial premises.

What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? — DoppyTheElv

The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions. Theists often don't see that these are questionable because the argument "proves" what they already "know" to be true.

Fair point, but this leads to the question of what constitutes reasonable justification? Most beliefs are not provable by deduction - we make inductive inferences all the time. You can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's reasonable to believe it will. Science advances by abductive reasoning, not deduction. To deny justifications other than deduction leads to extreme philosophical skepticism, which is paralyzing.

But it demonstrates that conceptually, propositions can be true but unprovable.

Isn't true but unprovable a contradiction? — TheMadFool

No. Consider Goldbach's conjecture(GC):Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.

GC may be true even if it cannot be proven true. If true, and unprovable, it is unknowable.

I think the reaction against being "politically correct" is sometimes merely a half-assed way of justifying loutishness. — Ciceronianus the White

That's often true, although sometimes it refers to comments that were truly intended innocently. e.g. my wife (a special ed teacher, not of the intellectually challenged, but still worked in those circles) jumped on me a couple years ago for referring to a student as "retarded".

As background, I volunteered at the "Houston Center for the Retarded" when I was in high school in the early 1970s - that's the last time I had personal contact with the intellectually challenged. But these days, "retarded" has become a politically incorrect term. I understand why, and have no problem with that - but I simply didn't know. I suggest that making such an error should be considered a faux pas the first time (or two). It becomes loutish when one refuses to accept that the term is inappropriate and proceeds to use such terms regularly.

9 out of 10 Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, and in fact many express admiration for it,

88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness.
— NOS4A2


Let's assume that's true. Do you think the name should not be changed? If so, why do you want the name to remain "Redskins"? If you think it should be changed, what is your complaint? If you don't care, why make an issue of it? — Ciceronianus the White

I once read a book about the Amos n' Andy radio show. In its earliest days, the white actors who portrayed (racially stereotypical) black characters were popular and respected among the black community. The acceptance of status quo is pretty common, but that doesn't mean the status quo should be perpetuated.

Washington Redskins News

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during Monday's daily press briefing that President Trump "believes that the Native American community would be very angry" about Washington's NFL team changing its name source

Meanwhile, back in the world of sane people:, the Navajo Nation put out a statement on the retirement of the Redskins name:

“July 13, 2020 is now a historic day for all Indigenous peoples around the world as the NFL Washington-based team officially announced the retirement of the racist and disparaging “Redskins” team name and logo,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez wrote. “This change did not come about willingly by the team’s owners, but by the mounting pressure and advocacy of Indigenous peoples such as Amanda Blackhorse, and many other warriors who fought long and hard for this change.”
source

I had to double check the first article to see if it was real. It's the sort of thing I expect to see in The Onion.

If you think Trump corrected a miscarriage of justice in pardoning Stone, that's going to need some support.

This article makes a pretty good case for corruption: Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

I see nothing wrong with the article save for the implication that speaking to Assange and Wikileaks and having interest in the emails (knowledge of which was already public) was somehow a bad thing. It’s not.

Stone maintains that he wasn’t prosecuted because he was covering for the president, but because he refused to lie about the president. — NOS4A2

The facts belie what Stone says. Here's some quotes from the article that you agree is factual:

Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify.

...Stone did, indeed, refuse to provide testimony adverse to Trump. And while his precise relationship to WikiLeaks and Assange was never fully explained, he stood trial for lies to Congress denying his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, and for intimidating another witness who could have contradicted those lies. As the judge in Stone’s case put it: “He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."

It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.

I'd love for you to fact check this article:
Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

It looks pretty solid to me, but my judgment may be impaired by bias. Help me be more objective by identifying the falsehoods in the story.

Setting aside your partisan viewpoint on the events, every innocent person who has ever been arrested has been treated unfairly. That does not give them the right to lie under oath. In fact, lying under oath will always look suspicious, so it's a bad idea.

Because he was treated unjustly and wasn’t given a fair trial. — NOS4A2

Why is it unjust to charge him with perjury, when he lied under oath?

You’re spouting the Pelosi line that the Mueller investigation was a legit investigation. The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion. Any indictments?

Stone was raided by a SWAT team with CNN in tow, and for what — NOS4A2

You're jumping to conclusions about my motivation. I'm focusing on the fact that Stone committed crimes and was convicted. Any possible problem with the initiation of the investigation is irrelevant. Stone committed perjury and witness intimidation. A jury found him guilty. We're supposed to have rule of law. My "why" was intended to solicit an answer that would somehow relate to why he deserved preferential treatment. What makes it OK to commit these crimes? Can everyone expect the same treatment?

Assertion will get you nowhere. — Metaphysician Undercover

What an odd thing to say, considering that you asserted physicists have been impaired by their ignorance of metaphysics, and your examples were a fail.

The problem is, that from the perspective of classical metaphysics, the "insight" of special relativity is not an advancement at all, it's a step backward, a rejection of discipline. Special relativity assigns ambiguity to the point in time designated as "now". But precise measurement of time requires precise determinations of the points "now", which mark the beginning an ending of the measured duration. Without such precision we have uncertainty. Hence the uncertainty principle, emerges as the result of the ambiguity which special relativity assigns to the point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a novel view of an "uncertainty principle" That's interesting that you think that time can't be measured precisely. You're wrong, but it's interesting that you believe it.

Out of idle curiosity, what exactly is your objection to quantum physics?
— fishfry

If you're interested, just go back and read the posts I made in this thread. They aren't large, and there isn't a lot. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fishfry - don't waste your time.