Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump". — Benkei

He also brings "not Republican" to the table, which entails (among other things) the expectation he'd block attempts to further restrict women's reproductive rights. It also entails appointment of judges that are more apt to have a more expansive view of civil rights.

I wonder which excuse they'll use to overturn Colorado's decision. My guess: inadequate due process.

Just to be clear, the immunity issue (which is what we were discussing) has no bearing on his candidacy. He could be rotting in prison and still be a candidate for President.

The next step will be to file the appeal to the Supreme Court, and this will probably be on the deadline date of Feb 12 (they'll squeeze every possible millisecond of delay possible). Some analysts have suggested SCOTUS might decline to hear it, letting the DC appeal's court ruling stand. My guess is they'll hear it.

That's not really true. Sure, everyone is happy to take home more money, but lots are unhappy with the way the tax cuts were divided up. Many are also unhappy that the corporate tax cut was permanent while the individual tax cut was temporary. And since you agree deficits and debt matter, you should agree the long term effects are relevant to the analysis- irrespective of people liking the extra cash.

Do you understand that the 2017 TCJA is still in effect until 2025? You probably benefited from it when you filed your taxes. — L'éléphant

Yes and yes. Do you think that's the full story? Do deficits and debt not matter?

oops. Got it.

his Christian nationalist foreign policy handlers would let him do anything to harm or even inconvenience Israel. — flannel jesus

Did you mean, "wouldn't"?

You have to think outside the box. — L'éléphant

What's your point? I simply answered your question. My point was that it's silly to just give credit or blame to a sitting President based on the status of the economy. Rather, we should credit or blame them for policy we believe to be beneficial or detrimental. Whether or not the Ryan tax cuts were beneficial or detrimental is open to debate. In one sense, everyone who paid less taxes got some benefit (some more than others) , but it also resulted in higher deficits, and an increase in national debt.

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing — unenlightened

What makes you think Trump would be any less supportive of Israel, in its efforts to eliminate Hamas?

There is nothing to echo — NOS4A2

You're echoing accusations about Willis, treating them as established fact. As I noted, there have been accusations- and many of them have been debunked (see: https://www.justsecurity.org/91627/the-fulton-county-disqualification-allegations-myths-facts-and-unknowns/). She may have done something illegal or unethical, but it's premature to draw that conclusion at this point.

You're also echoing the claim that the courts and justice system are "weaponized". This has all the elements of conspiracy theory. It appeals to Trump cult members because it supports the narrative that Trump is a victim.

It's a common thread among members of the Trump cult, that they echo his ad hominem attacks and ignore their saviour's legal and moral issues.

If Willis broke the law, I hope she suffers the legal consequences. Can you say that about Trump?

I'm not a lawyer, but in my IT career, project leaders didn't need technical expertise, they needed management skills. I related this to what the article said:

As critics allege, it appears to be true that Wade does not have experience in prosecuting RICO cases or other felony cases. “An AJC [Atlanta Journal Constitution] review of court records in metro Atlanta found no evidence he ever prosecuted a felony.” However, many prosecutors do not have experience with RICO cases and such experience should not necessarily be required to be one of the multiple special prosecutors on this case – particularly given that Wade serves as the lead prosecutor, and another special prosecutor on the case is a leading RICO expert. At any rate, Wade has relevant experience handling felony cases as a defense lawyer.

also

Willis told the New York Times that she hired Wade after several other candidates turned her down.

Much of the negative reporting was based on Roman's accusations, which the JUSTSECURITY article shows to be false. It appears to me that this article, plus her filing (assuming she's being truthful) exonerates her of everything but poor judgement in getting romantically involved.

Re: never having worked a RICO case- the article indicates it's not problematic because of his role as lead prosecutor. An attorney with RICO expertise reports to him.

She says in her filing that she's known and respected him a long time.

It's in her court filing. If she lied on it, her law license is in jeopardy.

every potential juror is going to know she was fucking him when she gave him the job. — RogueAI

According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him.

Where in my post did I say that Trump controlled the economy that was doing well. I stated a platitude -- the economy was doing well. A great economy helps any sitting president. — L'éléphant

I was responding to that platitude, not making an accusation.

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again. — L'éléphant

Yes, there is. It seems irrational

You mean the 2017 tax cuts and job acts. What were the votes? Did both parties vote for it? — L'éléphant

No. It received no votes from Democrats.

Even Jonathan Turley has said impeachment is unwarranted.

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. — Corvus

To be a thing is to exist. If you don't understand that, then there's no point discussing further.

Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. — Corvus

Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor.

The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness. — Corvus

No, it can't. Quantum fields exist at every point in space.

Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind. — Corvus

You're blurring the distinction between the objects of the world (the ontic) and concepts we formulate in our minds. Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic.

But married and unmarried is not existence. — Corvus

My point was that a phrase that entails a contradiction cannot have an ontic referrent (i.e. there can exist no object that is described by a contradiction; it is logically impossible). You had said, "And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist". It makes no sense to claim an impossibility has to exist. I think this may get back to your blurring of the conceptual with the ontic.

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting article about this:

Is Infinity Real?

You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects. — Corvus

You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left.

How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist? — Corvus

If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor.

:up:

Indeed. it's impossible to categorically attribute policy to results. But economists study these things, and this can give us a basis to judge the policy. It's far from perfect, but it's a superior basis to merely blaming or crediting a President for the price of gas or bread.

"Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"? — Corvus

Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings.

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I — Corvus

That's self-contradictory.

But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? — Corvus

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity.

What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness? — Corvus

I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue.

Agreed- but the appeals will take a while, and (if elected) SCOTUS will find some excuse (possibly a good one) to keep him out of prison while in office. It would, however, be the strongest possible case for an impeachment+removal (a truly "high crime") but of course- GOP still wouldn't convict.

Suggestion: let's vote against him, so these things don't come to pass.

I agree:
• SCOTUS will deny a former President has absolute immunity
• Trump will be cash constrained at some point this year (not as early as you say)

I disagree:
• that Engeron will dissolve the Trump Org in NY; I expect only a fine, commensurate with his savings on interest due to receiving interest rates more favorable than his finances warranted. This will contribute to Trump's cash constraints.

• that Trump won't be the GOP nominee. This is because 95% of delegates to the GOP nominating convention are committed to vote based on the primaries. They would be freed only if Trump were to drop out of the race - and that won't happen.

• that the J6 conspiracy trial will have concluded before the election, but even if it is - pending appeals will keep him out of prison. If he's elected, he'll pardon himself and put an end to that.

I was reading how the economy was under his leadership and the economy was actually going well. When the pandemic hit, it was used against him like a perfect storm. — L'éléphant

The economy was doing well, and the summers weren't as hot. A President doesn't control either the weather or the economy.

Regarding the economy, it would be appropriate to point to policies that may have had some impact. The Paul Ryan tax cuts passed under Trump, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. They also reduce government income and thus drive up the deficit. It has the potential to could increase private funds available for investment, but in practice- much of the savings goes into stock buybacks and higher net profits - increasing private wealth.

Biden's infrastructure bills have increased government expenditures, which drives up deficits - but they are also direct investments in the economy - creating jobs and investment opportunities, stimulating the economy.

So my point is simply that one needs to judge policy and ots impact, not simplistically blame or praise for the current state of the economy.

Determinism that tells us that what we perceive as decision making every single day is, in fact an illusion and that in reality "decisions" are not the product of pondering, rather are determined by the physical and electrical state of the brain before the supposed "decision" is made — LuckyR

I disagree. The act of pondering could be a deterministic process and still not be an illusion. Peter Tse ("The Neural Basis for Free Will") has proposed a neurological basis for mental causation. Even if an individual's pondering can only produce one possible result, it's still the case that this pondering was a necessary part of the causal chain that produced this result.

what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins

A God (defined as an omnipotent/omniscient being who intentionally created the world) provides a solution to all philosophical conundrums. If the world of metaphysical explorations can be considered a jigsaw puzzle, the "God" piece is a ball of putty that can be used to fill any empty space in the puzzle.

Naturalist philosophers have to do more work, since they don't have this handy fits-all puzzle piece.

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something.

The bold part seems equivalent to:
Absolute nothingness is impossible because something exists.
and
Something exists: therefore absolute nothingness is impossible

So you seem to be saying: absolute nothingness would be possible if there were absolute nothingness. This seems vacuous: you seem to be basing your claim on a tautology: If X than possibly(X).

It's not very likely Trump would support Israel in its current actions, simply because it would almost guarantee that the US will get embroiled in various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.

Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure. — Tzeentch

Remember the "Trump Peace Plan"? It was a proposal "negotiated" by Jared Kushner and Netanyahu, that gave Netanyahu what he wanted, and virtually nothing for Palestinians. Further, a large majority of evangelical Christians are Trump supporters, and they are extremely pro-Israel because of their view that God gave them this land.

While people are bickering over a border, I'm just waiting for Sleepy Joe to go to war with Iran and blow up the Middle-East to salvage his chances at this election. — Tzeentch

Are you predicting Biden will go to war with Iran before the election? Are you also predicting this would help his chances of getting elected?

Trump is promising a "perfect" border solution. Reminds me of his criticism of the (imperfect) Iran nuclear deal- he promised to get rid of it, and get a better deal. He succeeded only in getting rid of it.

Dec 5, 2023: House Speaker Johnson is insisting on sweeping border security changes in a deal for Ukraine aid

And now...

Jan 26, 2024: Speaker Mike Johnson calls Ukraine-immigration deal ‘dead on arrival’ in House
"Former president Donald Trump criticised the potential agreement being brokered in the Senate on his Truth Social site. The former president said “we need a Strong, Powerful, and essentially “PERFECT” Border and, unless we get that, we are better off not making a Deal"

It appears to me that Trump wants the "border" problems to persist, because it's to his political benefit.

I'm reading Robert Saplolsky's, "Determined - A Science of Life Without Free Will". I read some good reviews, but I'm finding the book extremely disappointing.