We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime?

For the last time, he never advocated anything of the sort. It’s why you won’t quote him advocating anything. What you can quote him advocating is people march to the capital building and cheer on the congressmen.

It’s not true that he advocated any crime, whether they are the ones you mentioned or insurrection. It’s why you won’t quote any advocacy of any crime, because you can’t.

That’s just not true. What he advocated was to march to the capital and cheer on the senators and congressmen.

And which illegal activity did he advocate?

All you need to do to see if the speech is considered incitement is to apply the so-called “Brandenburg Test”. Is he advocating the use of lawless action? No. But if he was, it would still be protected unless it was likely to incite or produce such action.

So the theory fails on all grounds, and negated by a well-known and easily applied principle that anyone can apply. That’s why the denial of basic free speech rights is the central motive of those who claim he’s guilty of inciting insurrection.

A reasonable person could go to a transcript of his speech, pick out one of the twenty-odd times he uses the word “fight”, and show how he is being literal, that he’s talking about actually fighting, like everyone who quotes “fight like hell” wants you to believe. But you wouldn’t do that, would you? That’s why all you credulous Russia hoaxers learned to spread so much disinformation, because you can’t help to follow and spread what’s given to you, and for no other reason that it is given to you.

It’s possible, sure, but entirely missing in this case. Not only does it not make sense to presume someone is guilty for a crime for which he has not been proven guilty, it is a double violation to punish him based on these presumptions.

You would run away? Jesus. What a good citizen.

No, given the proof the presumption of guilt is warranted. What you wouldn’t do, I hope, is presume some uninvolved party is guilty until proven innocent. But, as we already know, that’s what you do.

The statement that "only physical statements are true" is not a statement in physical terms. It is neither falsifiable nor demonstrable.

I can’t say I’ve heard this statement. Maybe a quote is in order. But, given that all statements are produced by physical beings, are etched or spoken into physical mediums, and non-physical statements cannot be shown to exist, it does check out.

The “fight like hell” canard is stupid because each time he uses the word in that speech he does so metaphorically. For some reason they take this one, and only this one, as literal.

I must have missed it. Did Trump tell them to riot in front of the capitol, break in, and put their feet on Pelosi’s desk?

I said he lied about having no knowledge of his son’s business dealings.

I identified a blizzard of lies. You just didn’t want to hear it.

Yes I did.

How is that a human right? Clearly, it's a legal right - but exclusively in criminal trials.

You thought that by “human rights” I meant “the ability to run for president”. Silly.

I did actually, it was on TV. I also heard him do it on various phone calls.

Then you heard him tell rally goers to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard, something that was not cited in the Colorado decision as far as I can tell. And what you didn’t hear was him inciting anyone to insurrection.

Presumption of innocence isn't a human right. Not being jailed without guilt being proven is probably a human right. But nobody here is suggesting that we simply kidnap Trump and throw him in a pit.

It is not only a human right, it is stupid to do otherwise.

I wonder where they learned that? The whole year previously there were riots everywhere, resulting in numerous deaths and billions in dollars in damage. Entire city blocks were either burned to the ground, or even occupied by bandits, because some crook died. The media largely covered for them.

So really, who cares what the politicians say? I’m glad they were scared, especially Mitch McConnell. They could use some fear in their lives.

People tend to commit crimes before being charged and convicted, not after. That's how time works.

And some people commit crimes without being charged and convicted. See, for example, every unsolved murder in history.

The notion that Trump hasn't committed a crime because he hasn't been charged and convicted is fundamentally mistaken.

How does one know someone is guilty of a crime if he hasn’t been proven guilty, in your world? Did you see him do it? Is it a gut thing? Is it because an authority says so?

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here.

But he hasn’t even been charged for insurrection, let alone convicted. You’re saying he’s guilty of a crime he hasn’t been charged with or proven guilty of. That’s a problem you have.

It involves the evidence of offered by physics, surely, but also some other sciences as well. Given its relation to philosophy of mind, it’s also about biology and chemistry, for example.

The simplest and cleanest way to understand physicalism is as the idea that only the stuff described in physics texts is true.

That’s a weird and messy way to understand it, in my opinion. Much of physics is theoretical and abstract. Not even physicists believe they’re true.

The root word gives it away. It’s not physics or physicism or any sort of positivism. It’s physicalism. It’s much simpler and cleaner to understand it as the thesis that everything is physical.

By punished I mean disqualified from the ballot. Do you think someone should be disqualified from the ballot for a crime he has not been proven to commit?

It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. Not having engaged in insurrection is one of those criteria.

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.

Sorry for the confusion but a Supreme Court interprets the constitution and law. I made the moral case that it is wrong disqualify Trump, as is obvious by the post and conversation you butted in on. Morality isn’t their expertise as far as I’m aware. Given your fidelity to good faith and reason, perhaps you could quote me in my entirety next time, because for some reason you’ve left out the reasons as to why it was wrong to disqualify Trump from the ballot, and as such, never responded to them. Appealing to authority and appealing to law doesn’t have much force on moral matters, I’m afraid.

If you wish to take another bite, I’ll reiterate. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights.

Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?

The decision was wrong.

The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:

Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?

So you think that both that both the party convicted and the party acquitted are liable?

I was trying to say he wasn’t liable for the same charges in the impeachment because he wasn’t convicted. The constitution explicitly said “ the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable”. Trump is not “the Party convicted”. At any rate, these are two separate arguments.

I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights.

Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing, but he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted. No one said he cannot be criminally prosecuted. That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. So thanks for bringing that up.

He was impeached twice, and acquitted twice. But never mind.

He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding.

Granting she has that right, do you think it is right or wrong to disqualify a candidate for a crime he has been acquitted of?

What if he was acquitted of insurrection? Should he still be disqualified for engaging in it, in your opinion?

Sorry, as already stated, and completely avoided and obfuscated by yourself, I don't argue to win points. That's your projection. I argue for its own sake.

Like Trump you say something then say something else to modify it. As if you did not say what you said and said something else all along. And like Trump you attempt to hide behind your words when your actions tell a different story.

Complete lies. You’re going to pretend you know what I meant more than I do, and this after you deliberately doctor my quotes to suit your little narrative.

Not only that, but removing people from the ballot is the modus operandi of the two-party duopoly. Look how the DNC railroaded Bernie or RFK Jr.

We’ve seen them use lawfare to get the greens off the ballot in different states.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voting-north-carolina-raleigh-48f1e61c1988c7083edcdc7bb1eace4a

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/19/texas-democrats-green-party-november/

Or “No Labels” candidates.

https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/30/politics/arizona-democrats-sue-no-labels/index.html

They did it to Ralph Nader.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Nader_v._Democratic_National_Committee

The GOP does it too, for instance with the Libertarian Party candidates.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/05/Republicans-libertarians-ballot-remove/

“Democracy” means for them the grip of the Party on the theater of power. Remember this as they invoke “Our Democracy”, because by “Our”, they don’t mean you and me, they mean them.

You approve of assasinations of other countries generals, yet you have disdain for warmongers? Is that right?

Yes, I approved of that assassination. It arguably averted war.

If you seek argument for the sake of your education and growth then you do not seek argument for the sake of argument. Except it is evident that you actually do argue for the sake of arguing. It is then evident that what you do is pointless. Round and round.

I said I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing. Why do you refuse to quote what I say, stopping mid sentence for whatever reason, and pretend I said something else? We know why: you're a sophist.

Yes, I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing.

My compulsive defense of Trump correlates well with my opposition to his enemies.

Did you approve of Trump authorizing the killing of Suleimani? Actions like that are straight out of the neocon playbook. It led to an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. air base. No soldiers were killed, but if some had been, we might have been in a shooting war.

Yes I did. The prospect of war was one of the reasons Bush refused to do it. It turns out he was wrong.

The question is: to what end? If the end is arguing for the sake of arguing, then there can be no advance, just endless argument.

It's a method. The end is one's own education and growth, which ought to be endless.