Precisely! I was too, and subsequently uncovered the dangerous dogmatic and political group think that unfortunately tends to give [a] God (Jesus) a bad name. I always say, religion gives God a bad name :mask:

I predict fundamentalism itself will give way to spiritualism. We are too sophisticated for the worn-out dogmatic brainwashing as found in those kinds of religions. Positive reinforcement, not negative reinforcement, holier than thou judgement, extremism, ad nauseum.

It is easy to end up partaking discussion about the existence of God and end up thinking of some abstract search and lose sight of Jesus, and the whole message of love. — Jack Cummins

Well said!

There are several mysteries which seem essential to the philosophical quest; the existence of God, free will and, life after death. These seem to be central to philosophy. Endless books have been written on these subjects — Jack Cummins

Jack!

Indeed, the EOG axiom encompasses well over 75% of all philosophical domains (ethics, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, post-modernism, etc.) for sure. However, it is usually in the cosmological sense, or used as a standard archetype, but not quite as much used in a personal way. God exists though in a humanistic way through the history books, just like any other human accounting as described in history. Accordingly, the historical narrative of Jesus existed, and that person who also had a consciousness, was just as mysterious as consciousness itself.

In this same way, the Christian God existed, and still exists through the phenomena of our consciousness...which contributes to the appeal toward Christianity as a cosmological agent being relatable to all people (human beings). As such, Jesus was known mostly for his thoughts/actions associated with the mystery of Love.

But there can be no logic about God. — Anand-Haqq

Major premise: All M are P.Minor premise: All S are M.Conclusion: All S are P :

All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)

A little more complicated:

Jesus existed in history.
God was known to exist in Jesus.
God existed in history.

There is love about God, love for God, but no logic about God. — Anand-Haqq

Love is not logical (transcends logic).
God is love
God is not logical (transcends logic).

Thoughts?

Thoughts? — Benj96

SK:

Love is all, it gives all, and it takes all.

Love is the expression of the one who loves, not of the one who is loved. Those who think they can love only the people they prefer do not love at all. Love discovers truths about individuals that others cannot see.

The commandment is that you shall love, but when you understand life and yourself, then it is as if you should not need to be commanded, because to love human beings is still the only thing worth living for; without this life you really do not live.

Don't forget to love yourself.

Well said Uninightened! Thank you for the inspiration... .

. It exists to the extent we live it. and I think love is like this, it is something we can do at a cost to ourselves, not something that is already how things work. — unenlightened

That's interesting if not, a profound statement nonetheless. Lessons occur in the strangest places.... Maybe another Kierkagaardian irony of life ☺

My interpretation is not either/or there. I know outside the scope of the OP, I would simply say that both are good. It comes at a cost, and it is indeed how things work.

The God of love is not reliable and does not prevail; He gets crucified — unenlightened

Unenlightened!

In reading that post, I agree with your last sentiment, however, this may need further exploration, for clarifications purposes anyway... .

Though not a theological interpretation, in the history book know as the Bible, The Jesus of Nazareth in there was recorded as being 'reliable' I suppose, in the sense that his truth was denied by other's. In prophesy of course, I think one could argue successfully that the crucifixion narrative/metaphor was very reliable. Reliable in relation to destiny, the temporal nature of the human condition, so on and so forth.

And so I suppose one could say, much can be learned about said human condition, many things of which still apply today (and of course some not so much, like rituals, customs, human sacrifices, etc.).

(As an analogy, some things change and some things don't--the Spanish flu pandemic had the same anti-vaccine, anti-mask resistance/arguments... .)

With all that said, if Epistemology encompasses conscious existence, and in that existence there is the experience and feelings of a thing known as Love, should Love itself prevail? If nothing else, Jesus was known mostly for that.

Me:
"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

I don't think this is backed by any observation. Therefore it contradicts itself. — John Chlebek

You are correct. There are many things in life (phenomenology; consciousness itself, the Will, human sentience, just to name a few things) that are unobservable (and contradicting) yet are true to exist.

Using logic, you may want to ask him to parse the concept of being "unreliable" (?). Or, said another way, what is considered an unreliable truth. I'm afraid he would stumble dearly... .

No exceptions taken there. However, what about the proposition : All events must have a cause. Assuming that is a classic synthetic a priori proposition, can you put that into context? — 3017amen
I do not like defining things in terms of causes because the term is ambiguous, and one must also distinguish between physical causes and mental causes, because they are not the same, for one involves spatial relations and the other does not. The mere existence of physical causation is an assumption, yet hitherto, philosophers have thought it reasonable to ground their philosophies in the supposed truth that "all events must have a (physical) cause." According to my understanding, this proposition must be changed to "all events must have a mental cause," and this is because subjectivity in itself is transcendent of space. This means that all physical causes are mental causes in disguise. — TheGreatArcanum

TGA!

Well, let's see, in the context of physics (and metaphysics), most all theories, experiments and the like start with synthetic propositions because they can be tested and proven/disproven. So quite simply, that distinction involves physical causes or causation. There is no escaping that.

Now with respect to mental causation and philosophy/psychology, self-awareness seems like the concept in which to parse. For example, we have the metaphysical Will (Schopenhauer), that is a part of conscious existence. In contrast to pure instinct, we have self-aware, volitional Beings, moving through time and space (our existence), who are causing things to happen, and change. And we do that through consciousness (which its nature cannot be explained logically). So in a humanistic way, we have a sense of basic causation both immaterial and material.

And so to speak to your OP 'process of thought', if that simple example (causation) is ambiguous, how do we go about describing mental events? Are you referring to philosophical/metaphysical Idealism?

And, what are you thinking is transcendent of perception? — 3017amen
the essence of subjectivity in itself is transcendent of perception. — TheGreatArcanum

Can you please provide an example?

a synthetic a priori proposition is a proposition which is not true by definition and does not have its origin in perception. — TheGreatArcanum

Exception taken as noted: Is 'perception' tantamount to self-awareness? And of so, what is self-awareness, a metaphysical, or as you so well articulated, an immaterial entity?

a priori propositions are possible because the mind in itself is immaterial and possess the inherent ability to know itself, meaning, of course, that the mind, in using propositions to conceive of its own structure or essence, is formulating a priori propositions. they cannot originate in the perception because that which is immaterial is necessarily transcendent of perception, which necessitates space. — TheGreatArcanum

No exceptions taken there. However, what about the proposition : All events must have a cause. Assuming that is a classic synthetic a priori proposition, can you put that into context?

And, what are you thinking is transcendent of perception?

synthetic a priori propositions are possible because the subject in itself is immaterial, and also, free (in the sense that a subject, by its very nature, has free will). — TheGreatArcanum

If I could paraphrase, is that another way of saying that each individual has volitional existence and/or their own sense of same (subjective truth)?

Kant's Metaphysics — 3017amen
Mentioned. — Mww

Have you checked-out Kant's Metaphysics? For instance: How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible? — 3017amen
Yes, and I think that I have successfully answered this question. — TheGreatArcanum

Guys!

I'm sorry I must have missed that one?

Specifically, I’m looking for my information on the immateriality of subjectivity because I find both Kants philosophy to be primitive in this sense. — TheGreatArcanum

Have you checked-out Kant's Metaphysics? For instance: How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible?

Using simple English, to be human is to be an action verb--human Being. Time is required for our existence. Things are constantly moving, changing, et.al . as required to sustain life. Eternity (no time) seems unimaginable. — 3017amen
It occurred to me that I really didn't address this: Heraclitus 's world of flux, one has to ask, why is this exclusive of affirming the present? WE are the ones who look at the stream on time as a logical succession, but the term "stream" belies this, for it possesses no boundaries at all. The law of the excluded middle is a positivist's way of misapprehending the world entirely — Constance

Of course, the existential ethos of life not being so neat and tidy, and frankly illogical, rears its ugly head here, once again. As mentioned, in normal everydayness we are unable to, as you say, affirm the present. I agree that the LP would struggle with making sense out of consciousness/the process of cognition itself/cognitive behavior, as not only does it violate the logic associated with the a priori law of excluded middle axiom, it also (consciousness) has obvious metaphysical features to its existence and functionality.

But back to the matter at hand, what sliver of time does the present represent? The answer to that question, I think, will speak to your concern about affirming the present, because perhaps, the present is made up of past and future, in an illogical mix of same. And so which of the three elements of time enjoy the special status of primacy, I wonder (?)… .

Maybe as a thought experiment, think about how the intellect and the Will function together. Throw in sentience, and see what you come up with....

Hello David!

As been said, thank you kindly for sharing some of your thoughts and time here. Just 2 quick questions that relate to the 3rd Super, can you please define the following concepts that you used to describe your thesis:

1. "Involuntary Suffering"

2. "Pro-Social"

I am trying to parse both the practical and theoretical implications of those concepts, so as to understand Transhumanism a bit more... .

Thank you in advance.

We live in time, I would argue, such that past and future are subsumed under the present, or, rather, such that our experience of the past moving into the future is a reality in the giveness of the presence. — Constance

Sure, no worries Constance. K makes the point of both phenomena occurring from within the human condition, hence is emphasis on dread. (Logically, it breaks the rules of excluded middle.) Our existence is such that without past and present, cognition could not exist the way it does. However, it seems when discussing that which is present, the question becomes how big is that sliver of present(?).

Using simple English, to be human is to be an action verb--human Being. Time is required for our existence. Things are constantly moving, changing, et.al . as required to sustain life. Eternity (no time) seems unimaginable. However, in theory, Einstein said it was possible, out there... .

Too, in the aforementioned Platonian sense, we get to play with eternity from time to time. Whether it's through the phenomenal humanistic experiences that we engage in, or from experimenting with mathematical entities...

Cool! Let me know how that goes... .

In the meantime, maybe this sums up our musings:

Kierkegaard writes: Man … is a synthesis of psyche and body, but he is also a synthesis of the temporal and the eternal.

Perhaps in a Platonic vein, we experience timelessness when we do mathematical calculations ( a priori truth's tthat describe physical/non physical objects).


BTW, do you have that Chronophobia book?

Yep. I think Keirk would agree with the aforementioned video. The question concerning the absurdity (lack of definitive logic) associated with Time relates to its common sense description, and ultimately, explanation of it. Thus the question (from Keirk and the video) how much sliver of present time is actually present? Human Beings require time for their existence, right? Seems, once again, paradoxical. This notion of Time, using logic, can't square the phenomenal circle. But for using sense data, yes.

Keirk, being the sensitive man that he apparently was (with his sentience), tries to parse the emotions associated with describing time. For example, if we try to, say, meditate on nothingness, we usually come to experience anxieties about the past or future motivational wants and needs (in our stream of consciousness).

So one question becomes (a popular form of modern day Mindfulness) how does one approach the present using logic? I say you can't a priori. However, you can a posteriori, through having the aforementioned experience or feeling or sensation of time stopping (peak experiences, religious experiences, euphoric experiences, love experiences, any intense experience doing something, so on and so forth).

And so just from that little example, you have the human body, requiring time for its existence, yet in your consciousness you experience timelessness, at times. But here on earth it cannot be. And that's because we cannot explain the nature of the present, as previously mentioned... .

Does that mean we should experience doing instead of just thinking? Can we get more out of life by doing? Or do we wear both hats... .

Here, in my opinion, is more evidence of the American ppl’s lack of wisdom. Carter was a discreet mixture of traditional and progressive values; his successor was a precursor of Trump, a Hollywood celebrity who steered the country into materialism, away from buckskin and into Brooks Brothers. Carter probably fell out of favor only after the long Iran hostage crisis ended rather unsatisfactorily...which was not his fault. — Todd Martin

No exceptions taken (except BB probably had more integrity).

For my part, if I meet wisdom, in a man or group or institution, I consider it a permanent quality they possess that can be generally counted on. When Solomon was said to be wise there was no implication that he would someday become foolish—aren’t lifetime appointments for judges based on this idea?— after all, it was a wish granted by God...though one might suspect his promiscuity and choices with regard to women. — Todd Martin

Nice. What do you consider wisdom, in this context of politics? Do you think, like a priori mathematical truth's, there is perfect wisdom in politics? That seems like what you're implying.

I think subjective truth's, or Subjectivity, is more in line with what you are arguing there. Otherwise, we have to concede that general wisdom evolves, changes, gets better or worse with time.

You mean these same checks and balances that Trump undermined during his administration? — Todd Martin

No, I mean the checks and balances that lost him re-election.

Had he exercised more foresight, calculated more than just reacted, he might have gained himself a successful ride on that hobby-horse our founders feared our future leader might. — Todd Martin

Our system of democracy precluded that. He lost.

However, perhaps your thesis is more of a fascist pipe-dream for those who seemingly have narcissistic tendencies, not really sure there...or is it the other way around...

By thinking about the future, which is done in the present. Is there REALLY a past or future AT ALL? No. — Constance

Actually Kierk argued the opposite here in this short read: https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/04/18/kierkegaard-concept-of-anxiety-time/

Think about having a 'religious experience' or a revelation of sorts while doing something, and the feelings associated with that exerience including the perception of time stopping. At that Maslonian moment as it were, there is no anxiety, no anxiousness, no worry, no anticipation, no nothing. Everything stops, presumably, like the feelings/perceptions in Eternity (Kierk alludes to this...) . Yet, everything constantly changes, even during the simple act of cognizing about those experiences themselves.

Quite paradoxical indeed. Eternity doesn't really exist, in this temporal world we find ourselves in... . However, it does exist through what we know about Einstein's theory of Relativity.

And too, as Possibility alluded, perhaps the present doesn't really exist. Just thinking about time is paradoxical (think about the concept of time zones viz. what it means to live in the present moment):

That’s my point, Mr. Amen: how do we extol the wisdom of a ppl in rejecting an unfit president when it was the same ppl who voted him in in the first place? — Todd Martin

Todd!

Through elections occurring every 4 years. In this case the masses determined he should be fired, and of course, he was fired. In other words, he lost.

Did the American ppl suddenly become wise after four years? — Todd Martin

Yes.

If we were truly wise, would we have elected him to start with? — Todd Martin

Take a look at Jimmy Carter, or any other one term President's, they all were one hit wonders, as well.

Isn’t wisdom a permanent and timeless virtue? — Todd Martin

Wisdom much like logic, is a priori and a posteriori. With respect to the latter wisdom changes based on empirical analysis.

What virtue, then, of a wolf, were we seeking as the primary quality in a leader? — Todd Martin

The masses were looking for someone who could improve some of the political paradigms (among other things). Unfortunately his approach didn't work on many levels. For instance, his communication skills proved to be his downfall.

He only got fired after he had to admit that the election was lost... — Todd Martin

And that speaks to his narcissistic tendencies.

Barr was jettisoned after his usefulness ran out, but he had been very useful up until that point... — Todd Martin

Useful to the narcissism, or should I say fascism...

In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him? — Todd Martin

Our democracy of checks and balances would have precluded that from happening.

Todd, just an observation, your thesis reminds me of the book from OJ Simpson, 'If I Did It"; dishonorable, discreditable and unscrupulous, to say the least.

My recommendation would to take this same intellectual energy and focus on something more virtuous (vs. violence, selfishness and greed) , also to say the least... .

Was it by wisdom that the masses voted him in in the first place? We let the wolf in the door...and he wasn’t even dressed in sheep’s clothing! We all knew what he was when, through our wisdom, we voted for him in 2016. Why then did we vote for him? — Todd Martin

Actually it was the opposite. It was a lack of wisdom, through ignorance, and naivety. Many thought he was the holy Grail The outsider businessman who could save the day. As it turned out not only couldn't he drain the swamp, he was the swamp.

And of course much like this election, 2016 was a protest vote against Hillary. Moderate's on both sides didn't want the guy in there. That combined with the numbers from the extreme left tipped the scales. The GOP of course needs to redefine itself... .

wonderful was it, that it was a wonder anyone wondered why Trump put Bill Barr in as Attorney General; that wonder wonderfully dissipated as soon as Barr gave his public summary of the Russia Collusion Investigation. — Todd Martin

It certainly backfired on Trump that's for sure.

All I am saying is that Trump was in a position, on January 6, that he could have led his army, instead of just trusting in them to do it all for him, to the Capitol, put all his chips in, and, not just gambled (which activity I suppose he is familiar with, especially on the golf-course) in the contest, but participated in it...and not just participated, but could have been the main character, the chief, the general, THE MAN...and either won or lost his cause, to remain perpetual leader of the greatest country in the world, by his own merits... — Todd Martin

The problem is he was a coward not to lead his supporters and put boots on the ground with them, nor did he have enough merits to support his cause on a broader scale.

but he didn’t have the balls to do what was needed to insure that bet. By withdrawing, he insured his safety at the cost of the cause. He still hoped the cause would be achieved, but because he valued his own personal safety more, he risked less, and, though hoping for more, nevertheless got exactly what he risked.

I think he thought he had to hole it in from the fairway, so he wasn’t willing to bet on it...

...but maybe he just had to sink a 15 foot putt. — Todd Martin

Yep. He miscalculated. This is what happens when you focus solely on yourself. Not very perceptive at all and certainly not a virtuous characteristic of leadership.

Ye I think the book Frankenstein applies to all of use. We are fashioned by the gods (evolution?) in ways we really don't understand. We approach the world with love, expecting acceptance, but we find things happen to use that don't make sense (Camus's "absurd") and we become resentful and doubtful. We don't know who is to blame for the whole situation but we feel like we shouldn't be on this earth in this condition. We feel like the world owes us more. In the final analysis, we oscillate between pure idealism ("I create reality") and perfect realism ("only matter exists"). I think this dialectic is what "phenomenology" means. — Gregory

I must say, either I've been away too long, or you've come a long way! Specifically, you paraphrased yet anther basic existential ethos!

Damn these self-aware sentient Beings!!#$%@? Who needs them !!!!!

Good Stuff man!

Militant Moderate". Perhaps I should have used a smilie icon after that remark, to indicate that I was kidding. :joke: — Gnomon

Sorry Gnomon, I should know better. (I've been away for awhile, just trying to get my chops back... .)

As bruised & battered Rodney King plaintively pleaded : "why can't we all just get along". — Gnomon

Yep, me too.

Actually, I am mostly apathetic about polarized politics. That's because, in most cases, "I don't have a horse in that race". So, I don't have emotional attachments to the "things of this world". Ironically, my fundamentalist religious upbringing inadvertently gave me one philosophical meme useful for dealing with the chaos of the crazy world : "I am in the world, but not of the world". The image that suggests to me is of "hovering above the fray". — Gnomon

Love it! What a great reminder, and inspiration. Perspective! Thank you, well said.

My position on most topics is vaguely somewhere in the middle of the range. I am OK with some Conservative positions and with some Liberal positions, but not with their polarized extreme end-states. Unfortunately, when the shooting starts, I get caught in the crossfire. :cool: — Gnomon

I'm definitely digging what you're laying down my brother! Wow, missed you man!

Aquinas thought existence actualizes what some thing is (form) to makes its existence in reality (essence as accidents and substances). But doesn't a form have to exist in a sense before being actualized? — Gregory

Gregory!

Great question, in that so-called paradoxical view it seems like it does. In other words, if we agree that 'forms' are tantamount to the nature of our own existence (our true essence), and the fact that we don't truly understand those 'forms', our true essences, then we must turn attention to how we came into Being (or existence) for clues (theoretical physics, etc..).

In turn, that becomes a kind of segue to other existential questions, including metaphysical questions (essences) that include conscious existence. For instance, what really is consciousness(?). Self-awareness? It seems like we must first exist to logicize, yet it takes something or someone to think in order to make something else think, I think. Or, is self-awareness and consciousness itself (its essence) just a byproduct of evolutionary soup. Certainly. having self-awareness in and of itself, creates these kinds paradoxical concerns.

To me, when one speaks essences, it begs metaphysical questions, which include metaphysical languages (mathematics) used in physics to parse the true nature of (our) existence. At some point, we only possess that language to (abstractly) describe our existence. Yet living life is more than just a priori mathematics. Go figure.

Walter!

Nice. In my view the traditional existential ethos is that existence precedes essence. Meaning we understand our existence more than our essence. In layman's term's, we do not have the essential tools available in order to fully understand the nature of our own existence, which are framed as essences (consciousness, cosmological existence, so on and so forth). Yet we do know that we exist (in some way shape or form).

So the paradox between understanding our true nature or essence and that of our existence, makes essence subordinate to existence. Logically we know that we exist but we don't know how or why we came to exist. Or came into Being... .

I can't remember but didn't Aquinas argue the opposite?

the courage to lead his mob/army into the Capitol in order to gain control of electoral ratification. That is what I meant. — Todd Martin

Todd!

Of course, you are not an advocate of 'Presidential Leadership' skills that encourage domestic violence and law breaking and disorder, in order to perpetuate a falsehood/lie. (The lie being he can't admit he lost so he fakes people out/tries to convince them, and cries foul making them think it was rigged so he can raise money and live for another day.)

And if somehow one is dupped, for emotional/partisan reasons to, in this case, think the election(s) are/was rigged, how does one square the republican victories in same (states/electoral victories, etc.)?

How does one reconcile those kinds of belief systems, I wonder? Is it all emotion? Is it power? Is it greed? Don't mean to sound naive. I mean, common sense say's 'this is a guy who is out for himself, needs power and has a larger personal agenda/problem, and justifies his words/actions through partisan politics'. In other words, the public saw through it; the experiment failed. If the reader is unclear, just rewind the GOP primary tapes from 2016; many of his GOP opponents called him "a Fake" among other things. If you want names I can provide (Ted Cruise, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, etc..).

Bottom line I suppose is that if one can provide for any legal argument to support 'the lie', it would have made the scenario more likely than not. Gotta give the majority of American's credit, they saw through the bull$$it. Dumper Trumper's Bull$$it.

I would say Trump was unsuccessful in carrying out this take-over because he underestimated the wisdom of the masses. Frankly, he was not perceptive or smart enough to know people's expectation levels for such a high office, carrying such a higher responsibility to serve the republic and its citizens. (Not to mention our wonderful system of checks and balances... .) Like you said, he thought it was just a reality show or one of his private sector failed businesses. (Okay to be fair he's had 'some' success, but you gotta wonder how... .)

If nothing else, it was a lesson of how not to get re-elected. We demand a little bit more from our leaders, and words, character and integrity do matter. It's a shame, cause he did do 'some' good things... .

He's his own worst enemy. Kinda like Tony Montana in Scareface :)

Human nature hasn't changed so much, but human culture has made war & conquest a less attractive way to obtain resources, than peaceful trade. :smile: — Gnomon

Agreed! And thank for the links...very germane to the OP I must say....I'll have a look-see and get back to you, thank you!

That's why I am a Militant Moderate. — Gnomon

In layman's terms, are you saying you're an extremist? I know it's off topic (you know, the war thing and all) but if one were to suggest wars are good for the economy, it probably wouldn't square with your other philosophies… (?)

Food for thought: should the Monk be involved in Politics?

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
__NOS4A2


Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you?
— NOS4A2



What was his intended purpose?

Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you? — NOS4A2

What were their intented purpose?

Sidney Powell — praxis

...and the voting machine companies are suing the lawyers and FOX for defamations associated with Dumper Trumper's lie.

I forgot to add that a donatoer wants his 2 million back and is suing for his donation...Trump dupped him... .

Trump plays games with peoples lives. Thankfully the majority of Americans saw through it. He wants to be percieved as a victom rather than a loser so he can raise money. Another fraudulent scheme-- much like the defunct Trump University, the bankrupt Casino's, racist convictions of his rental props, and other shady deals, ad nauseum...

We saw through it, thank God!

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
__NOS4A2


What was his intended purpose?

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion. — NOS4A2

Are you sure, it wasn't LOL

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

What was his intended purpose?

They did, and he lost. LOL

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

What was his intended purpose?

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated — NOS4A2

What was the right thing?

Indeed. Crickets LOL

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection. — NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

What was his intended purpose?

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

What was his intended purpose?

So what did you base your insurrection theory on, if not someone else's thinking? — NOS4A2

Trump himself, by duping his supporters, and lawyers. And there is no theory to the fact that he watched it happen and let it happen for 90 minutes, just ask Kevin McCarthy LOL.

I feel so sorry for all those supporters who gave him donations LOL

force and fear — Todd Martin

Can you (also) elaborate a bit more on those concepts viz your thesis?