The president is clearly talking about winning Georgia. — NOS4A2

And I fail to see how something so pointless would give him "more than enough reason" to try to undermine the will of the people... again.

According to Trump, all he needs to do is find around 12,000 ballots to win, which is more than enough reason to contest the results. — NOS4A2

Except that isn't true. Winning Georgia means he still loses overall.

Also he's been at this for 2 months, there have been multiple recounts, and he lost all of his court cases. As someone on the left I can definitely say that I'm tired of winning at this point.

Chalmer's obviously a dualist. That's not what I'm denying. I'm denying that he's somehow assuming it or sneaking it in his explication of the hard problem. There are solutions to the hard problem that do not take dualism to be true.

Dirty, dirty, play. No-one wants that law repealed. It would lead to chaos. But pretending he does is probably his only realistic option given the spot Trump put him in. — Baden

A bunch of Republicans do now cause some guy started complaining about it. Same way they all suddenly started to oppose mail-in ballots, or funding cities in a crisis.

Trump can literally just tweet that honey causes cancer and he'll get the majority of the conservative base to never eat it again. Fox will start to run segments bringing on crank "doctors" (of political science) to talk about how bad Honey is and how Trump is right about it's dangers. Conservatives will act like they've always opposed it's consumption and soon GOP lawmakers will add provisions to commonsense bills that call for the utter annihilation of the Bee ecosystem before going on about how "insane" the left has gotten.

McConnell thinks he's invincible, and given how Kentucky voters reelected him, he isn't wrong. Hope people in the state of Georgia have more sense though. Either they vote to give everyone $2000, or Mitch gets to run the senate for at least 2 more years.

Chalmers isn't assuming anything more than just the first person subjective element of experience. Unless you disagree with the existence of such a thing (quite possible if you're an eliminativist), then that shouldn't be objectionable. It certainly isn't trying to sneak dualism into the mix (it doesn't even mention the terms "mental" or "physical"). If you think this is explainable within a physicalist picture then you're more than free to offer it up.

Now fiction aside, can we imagine a place without time? Would any events occur? Can memories form? Or do all possible events occur simultaneously? What is the lay of the land? — TiredThinker

Sure. Time is often conceived as a series of moments in a 1-dimensional line so a world without such a time is simply a 0-dimensional version of that, which would be a single moment. I wouldn't say that events "occur" given that that seems to suggest that they come into being or come to pass which implies time, but they do exist within this solitary moment. There are no other versions of the world and in that sense everything is "simultaneous". Such views about time are often called temporal solipsism for obvious reasons.

One can do the same thing with space just by reducing the amount of spatial dimensions to a single point. In that case, there is no "there", only "here" and our sense of direction ceases to be. Like time this is a solipsistic view with respect to space.

I guess a more interesting question would be what multiple time dimensions would be like if it were possible. We often understand space as being multi-dimensional, but in most theories (even in string theory with it's dozen dimensions), there is only one time dimension.

In the movie, "Doctor Strange" he goes to a universe where time doesn't exist and creates a time loop. — TiredThinker

Never watched that movie but frankly that just sounds like a load of sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

That stimulus bill was passed under his watch. You know, when he could've used his leverage over the GOP to pressure McConnell into passing a bigger bill than even the Democrats are asking for (least, that was what he was claiming he was gonna do) instead of spending the last few weeks obsessively trying to overthrow the will of the people and scamming idiots like you.

Hopefully we'll see that kind of innovation and bold action with respect to climate change. Who knows what people can accomplish when the stock market is at stake.

I meant I don't see the Democrats winning next time. They had the "not Trump" turn out now but that's gone next time. And the corporate shill spiel, I'm betting Americans are smarter than that and if not smarts then definitely they must feel something is off after the lost decade with terrorism wars and the first crisis and now a pandemic and another crisis where again the rich aren't bleeding like the next man. Two lost decades? They sense the inequality and the betrayal hence Trump last time. — Benkei

I guess I don't disagree for the most part, but if the Democrats would win again, it would be with an incumbent on the ticket instead of Ms. identity politics on steroids (and even then it's a 50/50 thing). It's clear the party has learnt the wrong lessons from last time and they'll go on pretending like the problem is not with them which isn't a good sign for their future.

The only other way I can see the Dems winning again is if Trump somehow blows his party up in the next 4 years. It's crazy to say that that's not a total impossibility but that's where things have gone in America.

The lie the election was stolen will cause high voter turn out for Republicans for years, whereas most democratic voters will relax once Trump is gone. — Benkei

We'll see what happens in Georgia. Hopefully the GOP turnout will be dampened because they see no point in voting in a "rigged" election and this will finally be a wakeup call to Republican leadership.

Then again, my fear is that you're right and that somehow the GOP will turnout 105% of their voters in January due to the MAGA cult not being able to think logically. Humanity always has a habit of letting us down so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens.

I predict a 4 year presidency. — Benkei

Depends on if Biden can even run by then. If not then the Democrats will most likely nominate Harris whose message is *checks notes* being the first Black, Asian American Female president. She'll probably have Buttigieg as her running mate as well, who will be the first gay VP if elected. I mean, Biden's cabinet was praised for it's diversity (despite being full of the same corporate goons) so it's very obvious that the party is all in on identity politics as their winning pitch for the foreseeable future.

I think it's a lot to do with conceptual difficulties around the emergence of consciousness from what has been presumed to be severally non-conscious things. — bert1

In addition it is also because deflationary accounts of consciousness that don't involve emergence are also taken to not be treating consciousness seriously enough.

By the process of elimination that would lead to a substantive theory of non-emergent consciousness, which panpsychism seems to fit the mold of.

Again there is no "movement" of subjective experience from one moment to the next under a block universe with no flow of time, which is what you're talking about in your OP.

If you want there to be such "movement" then you'll have to introduce some notion of dynamic passage with which to make sense of it. Combined with a block universe model then you're probably referring to something like the moving spotlight view of time, which isn't a static B-theory of time, but a part of the class of tensed theories of time known collectively as the A-theory of time.

What exactly is a "layer" here? Do you mean like a difference of scale, like the difference between the microscopic quantum realm and the macroscopic world that we inhabit, or something more like parallel dimensions?

I guess there are a number of different ways to respond to this. If by "infinitely complex" you mean something like space and time being infinitely divisible then I would buy into that as it seems to be our traditional way of understanding things. On the other hand if you mean that there are infinitely many layers to the constitution of what we call matter then that's more of an open question.

Eh, I don't think he'd succeed anyways but do you think he's gonna try one what with his sudden firings of Pentagon officials? Personally I'd find it hilarious if he did that as a last resort (though I'd imagine it would be terrifying for people who care about the future of the country). I don't know much about coups but I'm pretty sure scrambling to put one together in a few weeks after losing an election is not how to do one.

Yep.

But you have a subjective experience of "flow", what will happens when it ends? — Philosophuser

It doesn't. If your current experience consists of just a single instance of time where you feel like things are passing then that doesn't change, any more than the universe will.

Of course this is assuming that this feeling of the passage of time is one that is compatible with Eternalism and it's debatable whether or not it is. Some believe that this feeling can be captured through the way the brain processes temporal experiences while others may perhaps argue that the very experience of passage necessarily includes change and thus would mean that the static block universe is false. Depending on which side you fall on, well there's your answer.

Your experience of it is supposed to be an ilusion, like the photograms in a film, because you have memories, but... At the point of your death, will you restart again experiencing your whole life? — Philosophuser

Not at all. You seem to be implying that we are experiencing our lives like watching a video on loop but the block universe doesn't say that at all. In fact it would seem, under your definition, be incompatible with it because that would require our experience dynamically change as one "moves" through a block universe.

Under the block universe of Eternalism, your experience is static and thus you are sort of trapped in subjective world of what you're currently experiencing. There isn't a fact to what you did experience or what you will experience, just as much as there isn't a fact as to what there was or will be in the block universe itself. Every moment just is.

Hopefully you can help deliver the Senate to the Dems and keep McConnell out of power. The fate of any stimulus rests on flipping both Georgia seats.

Also the stock market rose upon the news of a divided and thus ineffectual congress. Really tells you about the class divides in the country when the rich find the poor not getting stimulus "acceptable".

Huh, close to what I was saying. Again, even if he's going out the door we shouldn't rest easy cause Trump could cause alot of damage to the people around him. If there wasn't a runoff election that would basically decide the fate of the GOP Senate then McConnell would've probably thrown Trump under the bus by now.

I feel like we're at that point in a horror film where the monster gets defeated but spends the next twenty minutes dying on screen and taking some people down with him.

Just another reminder of how impatient we Americans are I guess. We just can't wait until the votes have actually been counted. — Hippyhead

I'm pretty sure that alot of non-Americans were impatient with the results as well, myself included. The electoral college system, the fact that the mail-in votes were not allowed to be counted in some states (like Pennsylvania) because Republicans made it that way but was in others (like Florida), and the fact that the media chose not to call the race earlier to seemingly get more ratings out of the story infuriated the hell out of me and kept me from sleeping for a week. Hopefully I don't ever have to follow another one of these elections again.

It's odd because most people choose the candidate that they believe will result in policies they prefer, not just because they like the person's style. — Relativist

Not true at all. Most people didn't pick Biden in the primaries because they liked him, but because they thought he was "electable" and most people picked him in the general because he wasn't Trump. They made their decision not based on what they want, but on what they thought other people want.

It’s great to celebrate the end of Trump, but it’s wise to actually hold Biden’s feet to the fire and let him know that merely not being Trump is not good enough, he needs to get on with actually fixing things and fast — plus, as Crank says, there’s a lot of things that simply aren’t in his direct power to fix. — Pfhorrest

If the GOP hold the senate then that may just be impossible. The only things that could change are matters related to foreign policy since the president doesn't have to go through the courts or congress. Biden would get the US back to the Paris Accord and get a new Iran Nuclear Deal, but domestically? It all comes down to how Georgia's runoffs play really.

America's in a really dark place even if the Democrats have complete control so although the world is able to breathe a sigh of relief the Americans will continue to suffer.

Fox News have started to behave themselves and I think the majority of Trump voters are accepting this defeat gracefully. The positive side of the American spirit is winning through here. — Baden

Oh just wait until Biden gets into office where they'll go from downplaying 200K deaths to complaining about a man's condiment preferences.

What if they run again with Trump in 2024? — ssu

The establishment would probably want Trump to go away and as for the voters, I dunno really. They may drop him like they did Roy Moore in Alabama. Ideally Trump would still hold on to a good chunk of the GOP base but not all of it, fracturing it's unity in the next election.

True, but there is a history of people ultimately settling on the default choice even after a primary. Alot of the candidates for both parties are often former vice presidents, including this one, but hopefully that won't be the case next time and that the candidate for the Democrats actually gets the nomination based on a winning inspiring message and not their connections to other presidents.

A sneak peak at the horrible future awaiting the US in 2024. Of course it's really early, but some of the "default" choices are hilarious. I can't wait to see Trump's son face off against Obama's wife. It'll be Donald Trump v. Obama but not exactly

Just woke up to Biden taking the lead in PA and the presidency and now I can sleep for the first time in 4 years.

I honestly don't think the majority of GOP politicians care about any of that. — boethius

I'm pretty sure they do, especially if you're Cruz, McCain, or Sessions. The establishment GOP live in a bubble away from the troubles of the middle class, but it's a bubble full of rich and powerful people like them. If you insult one of their buddies then they'll care.

Trump got the tax cuts passed, military budget increased, and the areas worst affected by the pandemic increased their loyalty and support. — boethius

Literally any other Republican would pass tax cuts and further fund the military (heck even some Democrats would do the latter too). As for the pandemic, polls showed that the places most affected by the pandemic saw a decrease in Trump support. Then again, that may not mean much since polls have shown themselves to be quite unreliable in the age of Trump.

The liberal media makes a big thing about any GOP politician slightly criticizing Trump or announcing principles in obvious contradiction to Trump, but this is a small quantity and all those politicians bend the knee to Trump in the end, or then basically disappear. All GOP senators bent the knee and voted to acquit Trump. — boethius

They bent the knee because their political careers are on the line. Trump was still president and they were about to have an election back when they acquitted him. Those elections already happened now and Trump looks like he's about to head for the exit so the situation is different.

I mean I guess not every election since the Georgia senate race is going to a runoff. Would be interesting to see whether the senators there side with Trump in dismantling democracy or try to disassociate themselves with him. Either move could cost them, helping the Democrats in January if they manage to keep their enthusiasm up. Like I said in my post above, there's a really big opportunity for the Democrats to actually put pressure on the SCOTUS and the Senate in the lame duck since the runoff is in January.

Yes, but who? — boethius

McConnell's been distancing himself from Trump for a while now since he expects him to lose. He criticized his lax safety measures in the White House when he got COVID and he and the rest of the Senate were adamantly against the big stimulus package that he and Pelosi were negotiating, instead drawing the line at $500 Billion when Trump is asking for $1.8 Trillion. Trump's been losing his grip on his party for a while now and he's too unhinged in order to realize it.

Georgia's not out of the woods yet even after this election. They're gonna have to deal with the runoff elections which could decide the fate of the Senate and also potential stimulus.

I originally thought that a Republican Senate and a Democratic president would completely destroy any hopes for a stimulus package but perhaps there is a chance after all of one passing if the Democrats message themselves right. They need to make it clear that the GOP are gonna prevent any sort of stimulus package from happening if they lose these senate seats and demonstrate the catastrophic effects of inaction on the economy. Who knows, perhaps this would actually put pressure on the GOP to pass something in the lame duck, in which case awesome, but it's more likely that Trump and McConnell would not be interested and the Democrats need to point to that as proof of what they're saying. And if the SCOTUS decides to dismantle the ACA then point that out too. Make the two Georgia senators who'd rather vote for a judge then help the American people pay up for their actions. The runoff election is gonna happen in January so the Democrats better start dumping their excess campaign money into that state now.

I doubt they personally despise him, he makes them rich. — boethius

So does work, but that doesn't mean you necessarily love it. Remember, Trump disrespected John McCain's military service, insulted Ted Cruz's wife, and destroyed Session's (the first GOP congressman to actually endorse him in 2016) political career for doing his job. I'm pretty sure all of them would shed as many tears for his death as Trump would for Herman Cain.

I think they doubted Trumpism could work, but the fact that it does brings them significant pleasure. — boethius

Not if they're trying to distance themselves from Trump. In that case, they just turned a huge chunk of their party against them. Personally I think they're afraid of them and how easily they can turn on them if their dear leader happens to not feel good about them one day and sends out a bad tweet. Understand that they're not loyal to them, but to a guy who contradicts himself every other day.

So far, I only see republican's criticise Trump whom Trump threw under the bus and humiliated, so understandable but potentially pre-mature. — boethius

Well, some Republicans are backing away from his current claims of voter fraud. Sounds like they're not gonna back him if he loses.

Georgia finally flipped. Biden up by 1K.

I agree that this seems like the case. But we've seen the GOP posture to drop Trump before and then suddenly the ranks close and any remaining dissenters are sidelined.

So we could see a turn around on this due to leverage Trump has, or it's simply the right pretext hasn't been found yet. When it is found the base will rally around it and the GOP will go along for the reason you state. — boethius

I imagine their calculation is that since Trump is no longer gonna be president, then he's gonna lose the influence he has. As I said before I don't think that's exactly true since Trumpism is gonna stick around to terrorize us all, but if there's any time to dump Trump it would be immediately after an election where you have about 2 years to hope people forget about it.

I kind of wonder if the GOP leadership would get behind jailing Trump if he gets convicted after leaving office. You know, just to ensure he doesn't continue to bash the party that abandoned him through Trump TV or run again in 2024. With the exception of pathetic asskissers like Graham, I bet alot of them personally despise him anyways.

Maybe we'll get lucky, and Trump will spur a split in the Republican party; if the Republicans won't have him back, he might run on his own platform, and take a big chunk of the Republican vote with him. — Pfhorrest

Hopefully but right now that split seems to be mainly between leadership and the voters themselves, much like the Democratic party. It's clear that most of the GOP base adore Trump for some reason, but the establishment Republicans certainly don't and would want to move on from him. If they try to disassociate themselves from him, then that may hurt them in future elections but I don't know really.

Jeez just flip already. It almost feels like the media and the states counting the votes are intentionally withholding their results because they know that if they were the ones who called the race then they will be the target of Trump and his violent supporters. Otherwise Fox and AP would've called NV and the election already (since they already called AZ for Biden).

I agree that currently the remaining vote looks like it will put Biden over the top barring some last minute surprise, but with regards to your point about the SCOTUS, it looks like it's becoming increasingly unlikely since the GOP looks set to drop Trump like a rock so they may not think it worth it to keep him.

Then again, this election did show that alot of the electorate, including a large portion of Republicans, still value Trumpism, so it does put the future identity of the party into question. Trump is gonna remember who abandoned him this election cycle and he may throw a wrench into the party's plans to go back to the Romney-type politicians. And honestly I'd say the same uncertainty applies to the Democrats as well, since even if they do win they almost lost to an idiot reality TV show host (again) so perhaps they should do some soul searching too. In a way, 2020 is just 2012 all over again with 2024 being a change year like 2016, but hopefully next time, it won't end up the same way.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I honestly don't believe there is meaningful elections fraud, but I do wonder what makes this process so protracted. Other than in Alaska where they have to dogsled ballots from remote villages, I'm not sure why it takes so long to do things in Atlanta. — Hanover

It's not just Georgia. We're also waiting on a bunch of other states. As for why the election laws are made this way? Apparently the GOP legislatures in these states made it so that people can't count the ballots prior to the election when they're received, forcing this slow and agonizing process where Trump can question the results. And oddly enough it's the right that also chooses to protest and either call for the votes to be counted faster (in states where Biden is leading) or stop them (in states where Trump is), on top of the multiple lawsuits that they have sent to the courts as well, hampering the counting process even further. Just another one of the ways which Republicans complicate the election system.

Given how close the race is, then there seems to be a shot at the Democrats winning the Senate as well since it seems like the voter base is there. If the SCOTUS overrules the ACA following the election then hopefully that will send a clear message to turn out in the special election. It's a longshot though but Georgia for Biden was also a longshot as well.

Georgia is going to Trump, — Benkei

It's close so I wouldn't call it out. Trump's lead has dwindled to 13K and alot of the remaining votes are in blue counties including Atlanta. It seems likely that there will be a recount and that's not even getting into the Senate runoffs. Georgia is tight.