Thanks, that made me laugh. The one conservative senator who appears to have upheld conservative values is a fake and a traitor.

Yes, the Mormon neoconservative. What’s funny is, when hawks like Bolton and Romney virtue-signal their anti-Trumpism you guys lay out the red carpet for them. Odd bedfellows indeed.

Would you want another President to do what your Dumpertrumper did?

Oh, and why did 75% of the general public want witnesses? Are they wrong too?

I would want any president to look into corruption, especially when the tax-payer is giving millions in weaponry and aid.

No, the public was not wrong to want witnesses in my opinion. I too wanted witnesses.

Romney was wrong because he falsely believed Trump did something wrong and, in a fit of pious sanctimony, betrayed his president.

Oh, quick question NOS: You're a Dumpertrumper and want to get your take on this. He's scheduled to make an announcement today on the controversial acquittal. Why can't he publicly articulate more important/normal things like other controversial political policies and legislation... ? Is he that narcissistic where he consistently shows his need to make himself feel or look good? I mean, he does this all the time...at the veterans hospital where instead of consoling veteran's he talks about crowd size, etc...

Bonus question: was Mitt Romney wrong?

Did you listen to his State of the Union? Or do you just let the anti-Trump media pick and choose what parts they think you should hear? If you don’t need a curator his speeches are public record and available to anyone.

Mitt Romney was wrong, yes.

Besides, as in the Athenian trial of Socrates, not only do we not know how many should vote one way and not another to make our decision, but we are allowing our decisions to be determined by a mathematical percentage that could not care less about our wellbeing.

There has been no shortage of those who argue that their claim to the greater good takes precedence over democracy. But is it worth it to toss out the entire democratic enterprise because some technocrat or other believes he can forge the best path? As we’ve seen in the past, it is not worth it.

Trump is dunking on his haters today.

Love it,

I'm sorry but what the fuck are you replying to? I'm not misrepresenting anything; I'm telling you that the fact his job approval rating isn't as abysmally low as before is nothing to celebrate. The fact that you are, is sad. Dressing up a turd, doesn't make it anything other than a turd.

It is definitely something to celebrate. Trump’s approval rating is going up despite being impeached. It didn’t even slow him down, and he was able to pass massive trade deals while your legislators legislated nothing.

Who was complaining? You're such an underachiever that you celebrate a president for the worst job approval rating in recent history. It's sad really.

The only way you can continue on believing your own nonsense is to misrepresent your opponents arguments, essentially creating a cocoon of fantasy to protect you from the real world.

His best job approval rating means jack shit.

So do your opinions, but you don’t see me complaining.

The point was to show that impeachment didn’t work, that he’s getting his best job approval rating, not to say he had the best job approval rating of all time. He’s on track to win again. That means you’re on track to lose. But I wouldn’t expect you to properly represent my arguments, ssu.

History never looks kindly on the inquisitors, Tim. This is because persecution is unjust and cruel. That this mostly reactionary persecution has failed at every moment is eye opening, not only because of the resilience of the persecuted but also because of the unmitigated folly of his persecutors.

In the meantime, Trump is at his highest job approval rating and there is record-high optimism in personal finances. while Congress abused the system to furtively seek dirt on their president, he was giving us USMCA and massive Chinese trade deals.

The hivemind characterizes it as a "tantrum."

It was hysterical, whatever it was. It proves to me the saltiness and hatred of the anti-Trump faction. I hate to accuse others of being “triggered”, but Pelosi’s very public display was the epitome of it. Now the only platform the DNC has is Anti-Trumpism, which is little more than hatred and paranoia. When Trump continues to win and keeps dunking on them they’ll have nothing left.

Hah. Is that what they are spinning it as?

You seem content to accept whatever Trump says, which seems pretty crazy to me.

I love the political theater of it. This is history. It’s enjoyable to me. I simply do not watch presidents or politicians for facts and data and technocratic piffle. I can go find that on my own. I find no offense in hyperbole, or gaffes, or misstatements because humans are not infallible angels. Washington is Hollywood for ugly people and I’m watching for the spectacle.

I thought it was a great speech and it was a huge political win for Trump. To watch Pelosi tear up the speech afterword was amazing.

Democracy will only work when voters use their ability to reason and not how to satisfy their desires beyond basic needs. Last night, in Donald Trump's State of the Union Address, he spoke mostly about how his party has provided them with economic growth; I think it's simply a matter of post-hoc ergo proper-hoc fallacy and that politicians really have very little power to alter the economy that seems to have a mind of its own. Suppose he really did improve the economy, and he says he will provide more of it if elected. Obviously Trump's logic is people want more of that and the electorate will vote for him on those grounds, like a candy store clerk, despite the objection of the doctor that says "we should take the candy away before they harm themselves with excessive amounts of it." Just like a parent taking candy or another dangerous thing away from a child, of course they are going to cry about it.

Massive deregulation, tariffs and the lowering of taxes have demonstrable effects on the economy. But I agree that presidents often overestimate their effect.

Personally I want deregulation and the lowering of taxes because I oppose taxes and government intervention into our private affairs, not just because I desire money. I want more jobs not just to satisfy my economic needs but also to provide a sense of purpose for those who were unemployed. What I’m trying to say is I think it’s wrong to believe people are voting this way or that only because it serves their own self-interest. There are plenty of other reasons beyond base wants and desires that lead people to vote a certain way, and only in a democracy do they have the opportunity to do so.

There's a lot of things to cover. Finding the raw data for each claim could take a long time – if indeed it's something that can be found with Google (or that I know how to find with Google). It's perfectly rational to refer to someone else who's done the heavy lifting to save me time.

It's much easier to ask my science teacher about some science question than to search through academic journals.

I’d understand asking a journalist questions about journalism, sure. But running to them for fact-checks has become the sine qua non for anti-Trumpism. It’s the get-out-of-thinking free card.

This makes no sense. If someone claims to have done something I might not want to just take them at their word – and I can't just clairvoyantly assess the truth of their claim; instead I look to see if anyone who has (more) knowledge of the matter can confirm or deny their claims.

One can easily go look at the data himself. One reason one might want to go to a journalist is to have his biases confirmed.

I'm surprised you'd even watch, since you don't care what he says. Perhaps you're turning over a new leaf, in which case you should be interested in fact checking his show, and his presidency.

Imagine going through life running to a fact-check site to let some journalist tell you what to think. You’d have to have some neurosis for that.

I watch for the spectacle. I really enjoyed when he promoted the Tuskegee airmain to general, or when the soldier surprised his wife and kids after a long tour, for instance. I also liked watching nervous Nancy get the snub. Quite a sight.

Trump is killing the State of the Union address. Looks like we’re going to Mars, boys.

Rand Paul asking the necessary questions in the Senate.

The DNC refused to have their new caucus app vetted by the department of homeland security. Sounds about right.

One frustrating part about democracy is that you don’t always win. Sometimes your side loses and you have to watch the other side enjoy the fruits of their victory. So I have to wonder if lamenting democracy is more sour grapes than reasonable criticism.

Well, the Iowa caucus was a gong show. The DNC has been preparing for years for this moment. It’s now a dumpster fire. I wonder if they’ll blame the Russians.

Yeah right. You could have filled a book out of all the crap you've written in defence of Trump and now suddenly it's too much effort to summarise a single argument? Either way, I'm not interested in the arguments at this stage. I'm sure that they exist - for both small and large government. Mere existence of an argument, then, is not sufficient to justify taking a position - especially one which will cause harm to others. You must be persuaded by it to the exclusion of others. So declaring the existence of an argument is pointless. You need to show why you are persuaded by it, and why you are not persuaded by arguments to the contrary, and why (in the light of this uncertainty) you've opted to err on the side of the more harmful option.

I don’t need to do anything because I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. I was trying to answer your questions in good faith but was met with snark and appeals to emotion, both of which have failed to persuade me to your position. You couldn’t even declare the existence of an argument, let alone make one.

It's not your excess. It belongs to the government, if the government were to make a law requiring you to pay a certain amount of tax, then that money would legally be the government's not yours. Notwithstanding that, I absolutely can do something with your excess. I can gather together enough people to overpower you and take it.

It is my excess and I can do what I want with it because I produced it. Legal or not it’s still thievery and it’s still unjust. You cannot even gather enough funds to do what you demand of others, so I’m not worried about you gathering a mob. Besides, your acts of tyranny and authoritarianism will be met with opposition, even from your precious government.

Sounds the same to me. If I really cared about a dying man what would be the most rational expression of that care - me trying to save him myself, or me trying to persuade a qualified doctor to do it? Personally, I'd go with the latter.

I wouldn’t expect you to help him. That involves care and effort. Calling a doctor is the very least one can do for a dying man, just like paying a tax is the very least one can do to care for others.

But you haven't provided any arguments whatsoever. All you've done is said things you prefer. You prefer states to only "limit government power while at the same time defending me from those who would take my freedoms away." and you dislike those that provide other services. All Along you're hinting at it being about more than just your personal preferences but you haven't said in what way.

I’m not going to type out all the arguments for you. If you’re curious they can be easily found.

Who said anything about "as you see fit"? I was talking about taking excess to meet people's basic needs. Yes, you should be allowed to take excessive wealth from me to give it to others who do not yet have their basic needs met. I see it as morally wrong to allow some people to suffer while others have more than they need.

The “taking” aspect is the problem. You can do whatever you want with your own excess. You cannot do anything you want with mine.

I am. I support governments who take money from those that have spare and give it to those in need. Why is demanding money from those who have spare not caring?

Because caring involves taking care of the needs of others. Demanding others to care for others is not the same.

I'm not talking about the government's tyranny. You said that the government should protect your property, protect your right to free speech and defend you from threats to your freedom. Those are services. Why (apart from your own personal preference) should government services be limited to those.

In that sense that the protect my rights, yes they are a service. I actually don’t agree with any statism, so those aren’t my personal preferences, but as someone who pays taxes towards a government these are the only services I require. These services limit government power while at the same time defending me from those who would take my freedoms away. That’s why I see it as preferable to big government statism.

So, do I take it your answer to the question of how you justify your claims about what services the government should and should not provide is whether a long list of intellectuals agree with it?

There is a long list of thinking men who argue for all the other human rights too, as there are who argue for free healthcare, even full egalitarianism. Are you suggesting there's some sort of consensus among intellectuals about what services the government should provide? I don't think your neo-con liberalism is going to come out well from that criteria.

No, what I mean is it’s about confronting the arguments, not accepting the consensus.

And? You asked me why I didn't provide healthcare and housing. Its because I haven't got enough money. If I want others to have healthcare and housing I'll need to get money from others who are richer than me. What point do you think you're making here?

Should I be allowed to take from you the fruits of your labor and use it as I see fit? Personally I see that as morally wrong just as I would any kind of thievery.

Nothing is stopping you but your own refusal to act. So why not try to care for others instead of demanding others fund and do it for you?

Agreed. It should be up to the governments to enforce their laws. The regulations set forth by governments making Facebook liable for what people post on their platform is an abridgement of free speech in my opinion.

But it isn’t just populists demanding intervention into platforms like Facebook. Germany’s Network Enforcement Act is already law and parties like the AfD have used their censorship as a springboard for their political platforms.

Right. And why (apart from your own personal preference) should government services be limited to protection against tyranny? Why (apart from your own personal preference) should people who share the same country not give up some of the fruits of their labours for the sake of others?

It isn’t a Government service to refuse to engage in tyranny of its citizens. It’s a matter of ethics and good government.

As for the why, human rights have a long history of philosophical and historical justifications for their merits. There is a long list of thinking men and women who argue for free speech, for example. These are long, hard-fought battles, and the existence of rights are the fruits of these battles.

Yes there is. I don't have enough money. I need someone with power to extract money from those who have more than me.

Straight from the horses mouth.

There certainly are deeper understandings. I mean it would take a sheer act of will to exclude the word “truth” from the mental lexicon. It’s embedded in the language and thus in our thoughts. I am just suggesting one might be careful when reifying certain concepts at the expense of others. Might we be deceiving ourselves a bit here?

What you 'call it' is a pointless waste of time on a philosophy forum, we're not discussing your pet names for things. If you want to establish a difference between your list of 'rights' and my list of 'wants' which has a bearing on which the government should provide, you'll have to do more than just label them.

What criteria are you using to decide which services the government should and should not supply?

What justification are you using for your claim that these criteria are anything more than just your personal 'wants' regarding what you want your government to provide?

Actually I was showing that you were misrepresenting my arguments, which is a waste of time on a philosophy forum. You claimed I said something which I didn’t. So you’ll have to do a little better than that.

Defence of property, protection of free speech and defence from military invasion are all services you demand from the government. Why are your demands different from mine? 'Cause all I'm getting at the moment as a difference is that yours allow people to become self-obsessed sociopaths, whereas mine actually give a shit about other people.

My claims are different because they aim to protect citizens from tyranny. Yours introduce a sort of tyranny, that one must give up the fruits of his labor for the sake of others.

If you gave a shit about people you wouldn’t delegate your duties to the government. There is nothing stopping you from providing healthcare or housing yourself. So why won’t you? So I doubt that claim that you actually give a shit about others.

So you have no criterion other than your own preference for determining thingness/non-thingness.

I respect that and I am going to adopt that.

And truth is bounded by non-truth.

Reason and evidence is my criterion.

What does that even mean? You could not possibly come to understand anything meaningful about the world in which you find yourself in the absence of truth. If you drive to work, you can only do so because you know the truth regarding how cars work (I presume you would consider cars to be outside your mind, whatever that means), where to get gas (I presume you consider the gas station to be outside your mind, whatever that means), and the route to work (also outside your mind?). You could not make your way around in the world in the absence of truth. So even if you really do buy into this internal/external inside/outside subject/object nonsense, you could have no meaningful understanding of anything "outside your mind" in the absence of truth.

I’ve stated my arguments as to what “truth” means (all things that are true), and why truth does not exist beyond the skull. I believe things can be true or false, however, for instance that a car works in a certain fashion, and I personally aim to be as true and honest as possible. That’s why I do not believe there is something called “truth” because to do so would be untrue.

What is the basis upon which you make your claim to the non-thingness of truth, processes, and jogs.

What is the basis upon which you determine thingness/non-thingness.

So far, all you have offered is some ill-defined fear of the potential for grammatical errors and that strikes as insufficient.

These words represent verbs and adjectives that modify things in language, yet, with the addition of a suffix or something similar, they are spoken of as things. This is grammar. Thankfully nominalized adjectives are in decline,

When I use the word “thing” I mean an object. Truth is not a thing because it doesn’t have a boundary, doesn’t move as one, doesn’t have any objectivity or reality outside of the mind.

please provide some sort of authority for these unstated rules you have regarding the proper attachment of "thing" to entities.

you seem to make arguments for having such rules without providing any information as to what the rules are or where they can be found.

I will wait here.

What rules?

If one's principles are contrary to Trump's behaviour and policies then being principled and being anti-Trump aren't mutually exclusive.

I'd like to think that if Facebook were promoting Nazi or Ku Klux Klan nonsense then my objection would be principled and not just a political disagreement.

Edit: Although it's not simply about being opposed to Trump but being opposed to Facebook allowing "deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and tak[ing] no responsibility for them." Given Trump's constant attacks on "fake news" and threatening/punishing news organizations, I would have thought he'd agree with Soros on this one.

I never said nor implied they were mutually exclusive. Unless that principle is censorship, fear and politics is guiding Soros’ thinking.

But despite Soros’ claim, it isn’t Facebook posting misinformation and other claptrap. They are just a platform.

I'm not twisting anything. You called rights 'wants'. You never mentioned that some had 'reasons' to be included as rights while others didn't. So what are the criteria for something to be a 'right' that you think say, free speech, qualifies for but healthcare (where its available) does not?

I never called rights ”wants”. I called your version of rights “wants”, which I don’t believe to be rights at all.

Human rights are claims against tyranny. Pretend rights like healthcare are not, but are demands for goods and services from the government and other tax-payers.

Everyone’s favorite mastermind George Soros says Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook because “The social media company is going to get Trump re-elected”.

It’s odd that the epicenter of so many conspiracy theories spouts a conspiracy theory of his own. Given Zuckerberg’s commitment to free speech, it is no strange wonder Soros has it in for him, but Soros’ propaganda isn’t so much a matter of principle as it is the typical anti-Trump politics.

Hang on, just now it was nothing more than a list of wants. Now there's reasoning? Reasoning which can be good or bad too?

OK. Apart from your own personal preference, what is your 'reasoning' why a government should protect your property?

A right to healthcare is a desire for healthcare. I don’t disagree with your want, just your reasoning for calling them a right. No need to twist around what I say.

A government should protect my property simply because I pay it to do so. If I don’t wish to pay I should defend it myself or perhaps with the help of my neighbors and community.

"shorthand" must be the new tautology.

I maintain the proper distinction here is not between adjective and noun but between meaning and definition.

The former requires thought while the latter requires a dictionary which might define truth as "all things that are true."

In that sense, truth is very much the product of our encountering, engaging with, and coming to understand the entities within the world that we are in. When our assertions reveal those entities as they show themselves to be, then our assertions are true. When our assertions conceal how entities would otherwise show themselves to be, then our assertions are false. Either way, our regular and ongoing concernful engagement in the world is permeated through and through with truth. We are either trying to reveal or to conceal the world as it shows itself to be. Either way, we are in the truth/false business.

I think that when we equivocate between adjectives and nouns so easily we are presented with errors of grammar, not meaning. Nominalizing adjectives is to mentally turn descriptive terms into nouns, giving being to things that cannot themselves be described. So though there are things that are true, there are no truths that are things.

When we nominalize adjectives we make it function as a noun in our language, and perhaps it does so in our thoughts. The adjective “conscious”, when nominalized, becomes “consciousness”, which has lead many thinkers in search of this quality. When we nominalize adjectives we simply mean “all things with this quality”. Truth could simply be shorthand denoting all things that are true,

triangle (the noun).

What about it?