The proof is in the pudding. — NOS4A2

During Trump's presidency:

The economy lost 2.9 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3%.

The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016.

The number of people lacking health insurance rose by 3 million.

The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.

Home prices rose 27.5% — https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/

Trump attempted to take credit for an economy that was greatly improved under Obama, claiming, contrary to the facts, that he had inherited a "disaster".
Joint Economic Committee

While it might be true that inflation has risen during the Biden administration that does not mean that the Biden administration is responsible for the current world economic situation. The article says nothing about the two major causes: the pandemic and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. In both cases Trumps failure to act decisively bears some responsibility.

The question as to weather a president can declassify at will or has to follow a process are addressed in the quotes I cited, all of which contradicts your assertions saying otherwise. — NOS4A2

It is not my assertion, it is what is clearly stated in the executive order. What happens when a president disregards the procedures in place is not so clear cut.

That you’d shift focus to their opinions on an impeachment strategy in order to avoid this accounting is obvious. — NOS4A2

A distinction must be made, and was made in the article you cited, between criminal law and high crimes and misdemeanors. This is why the authors of the article "shifted focus", or more accurately, moved to the actual focus of the article.

The current case, however, does involve criminal law. From the NYT

Can a president secretly declassify information without leaving a written record or telling anyone?

That question, according to specialists in the law of government secrecy, is borderline incoherent.

If there is no directive memorializing a decision to declassify information and conveying that decision to the rest of the government, the action would essentially have no consequence. Departments and agencies would continue to consider that information classified and so would continue to treat it as a closely held secret, restricting access to records containing it.

“Hypothetical questions like ‘What if a president thinks to himself that something is declassified? Does that change its status?’ are so speculative that their practical meaning is negligible,” said Steven Aftergood, a secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists.

He added: “It’s a logical mess. The system is not meant to be deployed in such an arbitrary fashion.”

What about obstruction and disobeying a subpoena?

Even if evidence emerged that Mr. Trump technically deemed the documents declassified before leaving office, that would also not help him with other legal problems arising from his hoarding of government documents despite repeated efforts to retrieve them.

The other two criminal laws cited in the search warrant affidavit — concealing or destroying government records, and concealing documents as part of an effort to obstruct an investigation or other official effort — do not have to involve national security secrets.

In May, the Justice Department obtained a grand jury subpoena for all sensitive documents remaining in Mr. Trump’s possession. His representatives turned over a few while falsely saying that no others remained. Notably, it demanded all records “bearing classification markings” — not classified records — so the claim that the former president had technically declassified them would also seem to be irrelevant to whether he unlawfully defied the subpoena.

So far neither Trump nor his lawyers have repeated in court his claims that he declassified everything.

Michael’s reasoning attempts to make us believe that a President must follow “established procedures” as outlined by another president’s executive order ... — NOS4A2

Once again, executive orders have the force of law and can only be overturned by another executive order.

...and that the lower courts get to decide what the leader of the entire American military can and cannot declassify. — NOS4A2

What is at issue is not what can and cannot be declassified. What is at issue is HOW documents can and cannot be declassified. A president can declassify by executive order, but Trump did not sign an executive order declassifying the documents in his possession.

No doubt Trump has been told this, but when he goes on Hannity he is not making an argument that would hold up in a court of law. He is playing to that segment of the court of public opinion that watches Fox.

As Lawfareblog determined: — NOS4A2

In typical fashion, you fail to read or cite crucial information in the article you cite that undermines your claims. From the article:

There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the President’s oath as a standalone basis for impeachment—a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself. This is particularly plausible in a case like this ...

In short, Lawfareblog determined that there was plausible evidence in that case to impeach.

In addition, what is at issue here is not whether Trump was authorized to disclose information in that meeting in 2017, but rather his now having documents in his possession now that he is no longer the president. Documents bearing on national security. Documents that unless found to be otherwise remain a matter of national security. Documents that unless determined to be otherwise he as a private citizen should not have in his possession.

I’m aware that the case has to do with the inadvertent declassification of documents, and said as much. — NOS4A2

It is what you didn't say that is important. Which is the more charitable conclusion, you did not read or understand the document or you willfully ignored and misrepresented what it says?

The power to declassify at will is satisfied by article 2 of the US constitution — NOS4A2

Article 2 says NOTHING about classified information.

What article 2 does say is:

... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...

He is not obligated to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed. — NOS4A2

According to Executive order 13,526, which established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified, he is obligated to follow procedure. Executive orders have the force of law. Only a subsequent executive order can overturn an executive order. Trump did not do that and could not do that by thinking it.

It is evident that you did not read the document or did not understand it.

The statement you quote begins:

Finally, as the district court recognized, the suggestion that courts can declassify information raises separation of powers concerns. In light of the executive branch’s “compelling interest” in preventing declassification of highly sensitive information ...

What is at issue in this case was not Trump's ability to declassify simply by thinking about it, but, rather, whether his remarks on another occasion could be construed as "inadvertent declassification". It was the executive branch in this case attempting to prevent declassification, not Trump declassifying inadvertently or at will.

More importantly, in the paragraph above this one states:

Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures.

and the footnote:

As explained above, Executive order 13,526 [Order] established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified.

This detailed process is not satisfied by:

declassify anything at will — NOS4A2

In my opinion, the problem is not too much thought but too many opinions lacking careful, insightful, imaginative, informed thought.

In order to achieve better thinking, there should be less internal monologue and more internal dialogue.

But sometimes we would do well to quiet the mind.

I feel rather strongly that we need to move away from an expression of profit solely in terms of money. — Benkei

This is one of the things Xenophon talks about. What is of profit is not the money or the possessions, but their right use.

If it doesn't improve the world we're living in, why should we be bothering? — Benkei

Another of Xenophon's themes. He discusses it in terms of the estate. Those who deplete it, those who maintain it, and those who increase it. There is a turn from the estate being beneficial to the manager to the manager being beneficial to the estate.

The simpler the writing is, the more difficult it is to understand it. — god must be atheist

What is true in the case of Xenophon is not true in general. His writing is deceptively simple. There is much more there than meets the eye.

Teacher: This rock exists.

Student: What about that rock?

Teacher: That rock exists.

Student: And these others, do they exist.

Teacher: Yes, all these rocks exist.

Student: Then do all rocks exist?

Teacher: No.

Student: Which rocks don't exist?

Teacher: Um, none of them.

Student: So, all rocks do exist!

Teacher: Er, yes.

Student: Then why are you telling me that this rock exists?

According to the research done by Frans de Waal, the differences are not exclusive to humans.

The Gendered Ape, Essay 3: Do Only Humans Have Genders?

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2022/09/the-gendered-ape-essay-3-do-only-humans-have-genders.html

The only sensible answer is to keep turning around, faster and faster, until you puke.

To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. — hypericin

I am wondering more about what it is saying about the person who says it and in what situation saying it would be of any use.

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else — Art48

Why?

Yes, many years ago.

If you are reading from perseus.tufts.edu it is corrupted. After the first page it switched to his Apology.

The difficulty of reading Xenophon lies in its simplicity. He was a favorite of Machiavelli.

As the White Queen tried to explain to Alice when Alice said she didn't want any jam:

"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"

Ask me tomorrow.

You seemed to claim that it cannot be, — noAxioms

My claim was with regard to what Hawking said, which had to do with rules and equations formulated by physicists. With regard to your hypothesis, what evidence or arguments do you or others have to regard this as more than speculation?

He seems to exactly be addressing a problem that I also see. — noAxioms

Where does he claim anything like the idea that existence is a property? The universe exists and there are properties of the universe, but that does not mean that existence is a property of the universe.

Did he also not presume some kind of realism in the asking of his question? — noAxioms

A great deal of confusion arises when certain assumptions are made on the basis of terminology -

Hawking is a realist
Realists claim that existence is a property
Therefore Hawking claims that existence is a property of the universe

What does he say to indicate that he presumed that existence is a property? The idea that existence is a property makes no sense. Something must exist in order to have properties.

And yet this fairly famous quote is purely philosophy. — noAxioms

Do you mean this famous quote:

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

The following from "The Grand Design" makes clearer what his criticism is about:

Model-dependent realism short-circuits all this argument and discussion between the realist and anti-realist schools of thought.

This speaks directly to what is at issue.

There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

The claim that the rules and equations are prior to and give rise to the world is a hypothesis.
Yes, it is. — noAxioms

Okay, so I will respond as you did to me. Can you demonstrate that this hypothesis is correct?

In any case, this is not what Hawking was talking about. Why reference him when you are addressing something different?

As to the problem of existence as a property, this is a good example of why Hawking held philosophy is such low regard.

Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato and student of Socrates, wrote a Socratic dialogue called "Oeconomicus", on household management.

Rules and equations do not give rise to the universe.
— Fooloso4
Can you demonstrate this? — noAxioms

Both the human beings formulate rules and equations and the world they describe exist. The claim that the rules and equations are prior to and give rise to the world is a hypothesis. No set of rules and equations formulated by human beings has given rise to a world. Or do you think that if we keep at it long enough we will?

This is how I understand what he is saying as well.

Rules and equations do not give rise to the universe. The model describes the universe. It takes it as given. That it is is neither modeled nor explained.

This is what you said:

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality — val p miranda

and

it [space] is just an immaterial existent — val p miranda

Do you even understand what you wrote?

If X does not exist because it is not material then if Y is not material then Y does not exist.
If X = time and Y = space then
If time does not exist because it is not material then if space is not material then space does not exist.

As the Mad Hatter told Alice:

Either say what you mean or mean what you say.

First you deny that time exists in reality because it is not material:

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality ... — val p miranda

but then in the case of space you say:

it is just an immaterial existent — val p miranda

In that case either materiality is not a requirement for existence or if it is then space does not exist in reality.

Who, now? — Banno

It is better that you don't know. Let's just say that if you were looking for an example of someone who contributes to the

preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent. — Banno

he would be near to top of the list. He came here, stirred things up for a while by letting us know that we knew nothing about Christianity and that he knows all there is to know, left, and came back yesterday.

Follow up to my last post

If what exists exists in space and if space is an existent then space exists in itself. If it exists in itself it cannot be the same as itself. Space has become very crowded.

@Banno

With the return of Joe Mello the scales are closer to tipping in your favor.

↪Fooloso4 space is place — val p miranda

This is what you said, followed by my response.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place
— val p miranda

If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible? — Fooloso4

An existent is something that exists. If space exists then it cannot be what makes existence possible, unless it is causa sui. Is that what you are claiming?

If space is place then what is the place of any particular object? The place where I put the dishes is not space.

Kant (↪Mww , ↪Fooloso4) and Einstein? — Banno

Mww and I are in good company!

An evaluation of opinions includes the question of which opinions are worthy of our consideration. What is central to the life of hairdressers is not what is central:

politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important. — Fooloso4

But if a group of hairdressers showed up, it would be interesting to hear what argument they would make to support the claim that what they say about hairdressing is worthy of our attention.

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality and, therefore, does not have a reality definition. — val p miranda

A reality definition that is limited to what is material and does not include time is an inadequate definition.

Time, however, is a concept ... — val p miranda

There are concepts of time but that does not mean that time is a concept.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place — val p miranda

If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible?

Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental because it is absolute, necessary and universal. — val p miranda

Transcendental conditions, according to Kant, are the conditions for the possibility of experience. Both space and time are transcendental, that is, they are conditions of the mind that structure experience rather than derived from experience.

Do you get no comfort from the suggestion that we are all connected via the components we are made of? Conservation laws? Only the form changes, nothing is destroyed or created. — universeness

Even if the components are not destroyed that does not mean that we are not. Perhaps we are the form those components takes. When the form those components take that is me changes then I am not.

That was quite a poria! From Plato to King Charles.

With regard to justified true belief, this is a long standing but, in my opinion, incorrect interpretation of the Theaetetus. The question is: what is knowledge? The first thing to be noted is that one must have knowledge in order to correctly say what knowledge is. The proposed answer, justified true belief, is Theaetetus', not Socrates. It proves to be inadequate. If faces the same problem. What justifies an opinion? After all, the Sophists were skilled at giving justifications for opinions, both true and false. In order to determine if an argument is true, to have the ability to discern a true from a false logos, requires knowledge. But this knowledge is not itself a justified true belief.

If hairdressing were as central to human life as theology has been and continues to be, then a thread on hairdressing would not only be fine with me, it would be something I think should not be ignored.

Job does not claim to be blameless but doesn't accept that he must be wrong by default either. — Paine

I agree.

And by bringing up Job, I was thinking that expecting good results from living a good life is sort of an argument for the normative. — Paine

Yes, this occured to me as well, as did Ecclesiastes.

... to redeem the idea of god by embracing greater and greater abstractions. — Tom Storm

That is how it seems to me as well. It is as if he looks at all the problems that arise when claims of God are made and ends up defining God out of existence.

What do you make of Bentley Hart? — Tom Storm

From the little I know of him, he looks to me to be a classical theist, although I am aware that he is frequently at odds with the classical theist Edward Feser. As I mentioned above I do not find his use of the classical argument based on the distinction between contingent beings and a necessary being at all convincing:

Hart seems to make a similar a priori assumption. He makes the distinction between what is necessary and what is contingent and applies it in toto to existence, as if what is true of the relationship between things that exist must be true of the relationship between what exists and God. Since everything in the world is contingent, there must be something non-contingent which they rely upon. There is here a shift from ontological necessity to logical necessity. — Fooloso4

There is much more sophisticated theology by people like Paul Tillich or David Bentley Hart — Tom Storm

What do you see as the advantage of Tillich's use of what Heidegger called the ontological difference, the difference between Being and beings, the claim that God is the non-existent ground of what exists? Perhaps "God" is an attempt to ground what needs no ground.

Hart seems to make a similar a priori assumption. He makes the distinction between what is necessary and what is contingent and applies it in toto to existence, as if what is true of the relationship between things that exist must be true of the relationship between what exists and God. Since everything in the world is contingent, there must be something non-contingent which they rely upon. There is here a shift from ontological necessity to logical necessity.

Philosophy is preparation for death. — Socrates

In typical Socratic fashion, this is not an answer but is intended to raise questions.

In my opinion the scope of philosophy is the scope of opinion. It is the examination and evaluation of opinions. Theology in the broadest sense of the term remains politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important.

From a philosophical perspective theological concerns are not theological endorsements. It is not simply an ontological matter of whether there are gods and how such claims are to that is to be understood, but epistemological - what can we or do we know about such things, and practical - how theological matters ought to influence our lives, as individuals and as peoples.

No, you’re assuming the story actually happened — Possibility

No, you're assuming that I am assuming it actually happened. This is what I actually said:

To anticipate the obvious objection, yes this is not meant to be taken literally, but we should take the story on its own terms. These things happen in the story and if we are to understand the story we must attend to what happens in the story. — Fooloso4

[emphasis added]

To read a novel and point out that the things that happen in the novel did not actually happen is pointless. — Fooloso4

A story’s terms should not be bound by what happens. This only limits understanding. — Possibility

A story's terms should be bound by what happens in the story.

Read it again - there is no talk of a wager made at all. — Possibility

The term is 'commonly' used even when there is no money other thing of value exchanged.

used to say that you are certain that something is true or will happen in the future:
I'd wager (that) she's interested in you.
He regrets doing that, I'll wager.

To wager is also to suggest as a likely idea:
I would wager that not one person in ten could tell an expensive wine from a cheaper one.

WAGER


.