Well, the common rebuttal to the claim “We can’t be certain about anything” is, how are you so certain?

I'm not playing. If I reply to you it's not to engage you, it's to make clear for others what I'm referring to and what's wrong with your reasoning or what information you forget or dismiss. Don't bother replying.

Then your aim is propaganda, nothing besides.

Here’s the judge’s “concerns”.

Specifically, Attorney General Barr’s summary failed to indicate that Special Counsel Mueller “identified multiple contacts—‘links,’ in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump [c]ampaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,” Def.’s Mot., Ex. D (Mueller Report – Volume I) at 66, and that Special Counsel Mueller only concluded that the investigation did not establish that “these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump [c]ampaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the [Trump] [c]ampaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future,” because coordination—the term that appears in the Appointment Order—“does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law,” id., Ex. D (Mueller Report – Volume I) at 2, 66.

Attorney General Barr also failed to disclose to the American public that, with respect to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into whether President Trump obstructed justice, Special Counsel Mueller “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment[,] . . . recogniz[ing] that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting [p]resident would place burdens on the [p]resident’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” but nevertheless declared that:

“if [he] had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that [ ] President [Trump] clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, [he] would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, [he] [is] unable to reach that judgment. The evidence [he] obtained about [ ] President[] [Trump’s] actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent [him] from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while th[e] [Mueller] [R]eport does not conclude that [ ] President [Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Id., Ex. D (Mueller Report – Volume II) at 1–2.

He Says that he agrees with Mueller’s letter:

Special Counsel Mueller himself took exception to Attorney General Barr’s March 24, 2019 letter, stating that Attorney General Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of th[e] [Special Counsel’s] Office’s work and conclusions,” EPIC’s Mot., Ex. 4 (March 27, 2019 Letter) at 1, and a review of the redacted version of the Mueller Report by the Court results in the Court’s concurrence with Special Counsel Mueller’s assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/03/05/uenrosj.pdf

According to Barr’s testimony, however, Barr stated that Mueller and him talked by phone, and Mueller “was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report”, which Mueller never disputed and which the judge fails to cite.

What exactly did he distort?

The Mueller report was released to the public.

when asking survivors how many of them survived the response rate was 100%. Have fun with yourself.

That’s a false analogy. 87% of people who were asked how they escaped poverty said they did so through “individual initiative”. Your claim that “there is a wealth of research how personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility” is contradicted by those statements. Perhaps you can reach into that “wealth of research” to prove otherwise. I’m quite open to hearing it.

There must be jobs (economic circumstances). You have to know they exist (access to information). You have to be able to physically reach them (quality of infrastructure & costs). You have to qualify for them (access to education). You shouldn't be discriminated against (female, poor, weird accent or foreign). They have to pay enough (economic circumstances, political minimum wage, negotiation power). etc. etc.

The classical capitalist view that poverty is not a social problem but an individual one has been dead in the water for about three decades now but political ideology takes long to die. Obviously a lot of people benefit in the short term from not emancipating poor people. In the long run it doesn't make economic sense though.

Despite that, over 87% of people reported that “individual initiative” is what helped them escape poverty. So like you said, the fact that we're still arguing this is either because of people not informing themselves or the ideological barriers that come with being born and raised in Europe.

I was joking. Nonetheless, he exhibits the same anti-Trumpism that has rendered relatively bright people into vectors of propaganda. He speculates, without evidence, that Barr made calculated efforts to “obfuscate” Mueller’s findings.

Sorry, I was responding to the claim that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”, not “how many people who try to escape poverty via individual initiative succeed”.

Both would apply in this case. I guess we’ll see when it gets to the Supreme Court, yet again.

There is a wealth of research how personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility. The fact that we're still arguing this is either because of people not informing themselves or the ideological barriers that come with being born and raised in the US. Fuck, if it was all about personal choices, don't you think the majority of Sierra Leonians would've pulled themselves up by their own boot straps?

I’m not so sure about that (though I might be misinterpreting what you’re saying here), because according to this study by the world bank, over 87% of people who were asked how they escaped poverty said they did so through “individual initiative”, whether by finding jobs, starting businesses or migrating. Compare this with those who said it was government (3.4%), or NGOs (0.3%) Of course, that isn’t to say they are not affected by economic downturns, health problems and so on.

Sure, they may be lying due to pride or boastfulness, but I think it is deeply infantilizing and patronizing to argue that the choices of these people had little to do with their escape from poverty.

You think I'm your problem? I hope Bernie comes out fighting hard and calls Joe on his corruption and warmongering. Let's see if he does.

Unfortunately for Bernie he is not breathing enough fire. He has the excited base but is too scared or too principled to hit Biden for whatever reason.

Brian Williams and NYT Editorial Board Member Mara Gray doing math. I wonder if they’ll fact check themselves.

For those interested, Trump is doing a townhall.

We have been. There's nothing you could add that would make the ashes in the mouths of Bernie fans taste any worse.

I don’t seek debate to influence others. I do it for myself, to better my own thinking on these matters.

The root if it is pure idealism: the notion that we have the world in our hands and with a little intelligence and compassion we could do it right.

You cant make a broken heart any worse.

That reminds me of Oscar Wilde, “ A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at”.

But we should remember that quite often the search for Utopia is ultimately a futile and dangerous one. It necessitates the sleep of reason.

I’m not a fan of nihilism. I believe in argument and disputation for its own sake.

Bernie is a great focus for debate. He is the embodiment of a form of American socialism that is on the rise, and we are watching historical movement unfold before our very eyes. The very least we should do is talk about it.

It's philosophy. Rolling the shit up the hill, spitting in the wind...

We should discuss the topic.

You're wasting the few moments you have left in this world doing something that is ultimately meaningless.

Fascinating analysis.

You're a volunteer?

No need for the mealy-mouthed question. Are you trying to accuse me of something?

Do they pay you well?

I’m self-employed/retired. If you want financial advice, let me know.

The stars have aligned so perfectly for Biden that coincidence can hardly explain it. The campaign ending and endorsements of Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Bloomberg were more than happenstance. I cannot help but imagine that a coterie of established DNC and their media parrots colluded behind the scenes, as they are wont to do, to end Bernie’s chances. The question is: why?

I suspect the DNC (which is a private company) establishment has a lot to lose, and does not want to end up like the GOP in the Trump era with its Nevertrumpers—irrelevant. Biden is a sock-puppet who can’t even remember what state he’s in, and his son is currently under congressional and DOJ investigation. So I do not think they are in it to win the presidency. I think they are doing this for the sole reason of defeating Bernie.

Lol. The phrase “OK Boomer” does apply here. These men are well into their 70’s.

I recommend the ignore option.

I would never censor you, friend.

Yeah, those government employees don't make it to the leftist list of nice things that the state gives.

Anyway, the existence of armed forces and how they are formed and organized in basically every nation state shows that not all what is truly collective is ideologically leftist. The fixation on the individual and on his or her rights and freedoms hides this truth.

In some cases within the individualist tradition individual rights extend to collective organization, for instance in Bastiat.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.

- The Law

So I do not think it is entirely contradictory.

Legendary tweet from the president.

And this is a very American thing: that the armed forces gives these kinds of opportunities, gives the ability to study etc. isn't hardly mentioned as an example of that evil socialism/statism/welfare state. Anarcho-libertarians often ridicule government employees, but very seldom do they ridicule the men and women in uniform. The reason is obvious.

That’s a good point. And as a corollary, military and military force is rarely applauded by statists, socialists and big government types in my experience. There is somewhat of a schism there.

Warren is out.

I hope Bernie gets the bump he needs.

I understand the utilitarian benefit of moving my vote to candidate B, which you explained quite nicely. But I consider my vote a statement rather than a tool to achieve a certain end. It’s expressive rather than instrumental, representing my conscience instead of my wants and desires. So I would vote for candidate A even if he was sure to lose.

As an aside, we should remember that laughter doesn't arise only out of humor, but it also appears in the most egregious cases of bullying and torture. Sadly, one can be humored by violence and subjugation.

And that alone resulted in the economy that Obama left office with. Is that what they teach you to say in troll school?

Oh right, it was Obama who rescued the economy. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act had absolutely nothing to do with.

So we already have a number of mistruths in only a couple of your posts. That’s Trump numbers, pal. Better watch it.

Well, besides rescuing the economy from the great recession, passing health care reform where over 20 million Americans gained coverage, and so on. One notable achievement that's related to not being a childlike liar, Obama was the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to serve two terms with no serious personal or political scandal.

The The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was under Bush. The website for Obamacare cost over a billion dollars. Then there is the IRS targeting scandal, Fast and Furious gun-running, Benghazi, Bowe Bergdahl, spying on a presidential campaign, on American citizens, on news agencies and reporters. Thanks Obama!

I like to know what my president is thinking, whether he spits truth or not. You would prefer a gaggle of social media consultants, PR specialists and speech writers to tell you stories,

That the above is a bootlicking thing to say is nearer to a fact than what we find in the bulk of your posts.

My eyes glaze over as soon as I see your reply. I’m surprised you didn’t go copy and paste some article to pad your lack of original thought.

What a bootlicking thing to say.

If only your opinion mattered.

It’s a shame Obama was so effete and ineffective and boring. All that truth-telling got us nowhere.

Strategic voting is about not making perfect the enemy of good.

Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C.

A if your favorite candidate. B has problems, but C is clearly way worse than them. All measured by principles: A best supports your principles, C violates them the worst, and B is not as good as A but not as bad as C.

It becomes clear that A will almost certainly not win whether or not you vote for them. But B could beat C, and your vote might make the difference, and that would further advance the cause of your principles, or at least impede attempts to violate them. To abstain from voting might be to allow C to win over B, just because you couldn't have A.

So, for the sake of defending your principles, B is the strategically best way to cast your vote.

That would certainly be true if I was interested in seeking and maintaining power, or as a corollary, blocking someone from achieving it. But to me, voting for candidate B is a case of voting against candidate C. Rather, I will only vote for the candidate who is worthy of my vote, whether he has a chance or not, whatever the possible consequences. Consequently I will refuse to vote if there are no such candidates.

No, it doesn't.

I say this because everyone makes mistakes, exaggerates, misspeaks, forgets, and *gasp* lies. So I wager it gets tiring holding people to inhuman standards. Trump talks a lot, so any list of falsities is only a part of the story. What I'd love to see, for once, is a list of truths.

No, it's easy when there are clear and notable ideological and policy overlaps between the two, and only one has a viable path of victory in the primary that was very clearly reflected in the polls for the last several months, which then, surprise surprise, played out last night. You're a fan of Trump, so I understand how you can only perceive politics as a sort of reality TV game show in which voters are only interested in candidates irrespective of any policy, but in fact many voters actual care about primarily about policies that affect their material well-being and vote based on which candidate promises to enact those policies.

According a recent Morning Consult poll 40% of Warren supporters name Sanders as their second choice (35% of Sanders supporters name Warren as their second choice, which makes sense because she's nearest to him policy-wise). Let's assume that increases to 50% had Warren dropped out and endorsed Sanders on Monday night, as the other moderates did for Biden (apparently not a strategy?). Had that been the case, it's quite likely that Sanders would have won Texas, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Maine instead of Biden.

Sure, counterfactually Warren's supporters may have switched to Sanders on her dropping out. I think that's a fair assumption. Frankly, I'd much rather see a strong, demonstrably left-wing party myself, especially while watching the incestuous political triangulation of the likes of Biden and Buttigeg, and between the Democrats and Republicans pre-Trump.

But as of now Warren is still in the race. So none of that matters; she is still Sanders' opponent. The idea that she should have dropped out in order to help Sanders' chances is the sort of anti-democratic power-grubbing that essentially ended Sanders' chances the last time.

Out of one side of the mouth:

Everyone: why respond to nos4 at all

Out of the other side of the mouth:

Now anyone can plainly see you're vicious and a liar yourself. You have not answered. And the question is substantive wrt the topic. My mistake, and possibly shared by others, is to suppose you to be other than a vicious liar. But 315 pages in and it's explicitly clear.

Let's go for 7x. See, even I don't give up hope for you..

It's about accruing and consolidating power with which to leverage and enact policy, how are you so bad at this?

That’s easy to say when the power would be consolidated under the candidate you prefer. It’s not a strategy so much as it is simply complaining that you are not getting the votes you want.

I’ve already responded to your loaded question while acknowledging how fallacious and bad faith it is. You can either accept that or follow your own double standards and stop responding.