The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country... — Xtrix

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership.

...those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date... — ZhouBoTong

So people who like higher quality foods?

:rofl:

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? — schopenhauer1

Plenty of repeat business on Fox news... and some out of the president's own mouth.

Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"... — Xtrix

I have several Chomsky books. He's prone to take things a bit farther than I.

I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period that have had disasterous results on the overwhelming majority of Americans.

All politics is manufacturing consent though. That much is certain.

The point is it isn’t wrong to expect other countries to hold up their end of the bargain. — NOS4A2

I would agree generally speaking about the obligation to keep one's word. I disagree that the fix for some not doing so is for everyone to not do so.

Did he or did he not say Coronavirus is the Democrat’s new hoax? — NOS4A2

Calling it a hoax is to deny that it is a problem, and it doesn't matter who "their new hoax" refers to. The denial itself is the problem.

19 NATO members that have not met the 2% GDP spending goal set at the 2014 NATO summit, which was before Trump arrived. So were they lying? — NOS4A2

What's the point here? Is the argument something like... some people do not keep their word, therefore Trump can pull out of any and all agreements that he chooses to?

Working together requires partnerships, not dependants. — NOS4A2

Working together is being interdependent. Humans are, by our very nature, interdependent social creatures.

That's a gross oversimplification of a complex set of circumstances resulting from a complex set of agreements.

Everyone ought keep their word. Not everyone has broken theirs. There are also better ways to go about ensuring that people do.

...if it is a belief, it is a belief that such-and-such. — Banno

Where "such and such" is a statement. Statements are existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices. Jack has none. Jack has beliefs. Jack's beliefs are not statements.

Our reports thereof are.

Jack's beliefs are correlations drawn between different things. Jack's belief that he is about to be fed by you are shown by his standing in front of the bowl while looking up at you. He expects for you to put food in the bowl. His belief consists of the correlations he's drawn between you and the food and the bowl and certain other things during certain similar circumstances. I'm sure it's become habitual by now.

I would venture to guess that certain sounds are involved as well as scents, etc. My own cats expect to get treats each time I arrive home after being gone for some time. They can be nowhere in sight but still hear the sound of the treat bag being opened, and because they've long since drawn a correlation between that sound and eating treats, they come straight to their treat bowl, because they believe that they are about to get treats.

Their beliefs are the aforementioned correlations. They consist of correlations drawn between directly perceptible things. Those things become significant/meaningful as a result. That how all meaningful belief of language less creatures works. But this is only to further cement the idea that there is no such thing as a basic belief that grounds al other beliefs.

Our world-views contain far too many disparate beliefs. As Davidson claimed... it's more like a web.

Are there certain attachment points... structural members so to speak... that lend support to each other and/or subsequent more complex beliefs?

Sure.

My name is... My mom is... My brother is...

But those require language... naming and descriptive practices.

Maybe they - like everyone else in the world - realize that when someone enters into an agreement that they voluntarily obligate themselves to make the world match their words... to make the changes they gave their word to make... to do the things they've agreed to do...

Maybe, just maybe... the rest of the world is not nearly as creative as Donald John Trump at looking for an escape clause in order to not be held liable for not keeping his word - after he has received the benefits of said agreement.

Maybe, just maybe... everyone else realizes the imperative nature of working together to make the world a much beter place for everyone, which requires being a man of your word.

Trump is not.

...I accused those who write in British English of wanting Sanders to become US president because Trump makes their own leaders look bad. — NOS4A2

Or perhaps... just maybe... nearly everyone else in the world would like for Sanders to become president because he is much less likely to fuck everyone else in the process of putting Americans first? Maybe he is not going to run the country as if it is his own cut-throat business in a dog eat dog world?

Maybe he realizes that everyone else does not have to lose in order for America to win. Maybe he takes the responsibility of effecting/affecting others seriously? Maybe he does not have the most outright openly questionable ethics in American history for a president of his own time?

Maybe he knows what he's talking about...

Just maybe...

Or it could all be some big conspiracy of the deep state to make Trump look bad and do whatever it takes to get rid of that leech? Maybe the aliens are in on it too...

It's about what can, and what can't, be said. — Banno

Then it's all about language use, and as a result of that and that alone... it's wrong.

Properly basic belief - if those come first - is prior to language. Plantinga's notion of properly basic belief does not come first. Statements of belief fail for the same reasons.

You're conflating my report of Jack's belief with Jack's belief.

He believes that he's about to be fed by you. That's my report.

His belief does not have propositional content. It cannot. He has no language. Thinking in propositional terms and/or having propositional content requires naming and descriptive practices. Jack has none.

Jack cannot state his beliefs.

Ok. So Jack does not believe that he's about to be fed by you... ever?

:brow:

You ok with that?

I’m not sure why everyone is upset about it. — NOS4A2

A well informed electorate is imperative to any and all free and fair elections, particularly when we're talking about a representative republic with democratic traditions.

Knowingly misleading the public is fraud of the very worst kind, especially if the public trusts that what you say is both believed by you and true.

That's why.

Basic belief... properly basic belief... is prior to language.
— creativesoul

You know I will disagree with you one this; it implies that a properly basic belief is could not in principle be stated. — Banno

This seems to be a malformed sentence, At best, from where I sit, it's a confusing way to use the terms. I think, based upon our past exchanges, that you seem to think that what I've argued somehow, some way, leads to an inevitable admission that properly basic beliefs cannot in principle be stated.

That vein of thought stops well short of the mark, because that mark is what follows from my claims.


When considering properly basic beliefs of language less animals, we have no choice but to conclude that properly basic beliefs cannot be stated by the creature forming and/or subsequently re-forming(holding) the belief, because they do not have the language capacity required in order to be able to do so. They cannot talk about their own mental ongoings. They cannot even consider them, as a subject matter in and of itself. They cannot name them. We can, and do.

Language less creatures form and hold thought and belief. The evidence of this is had in experience itself. We can watch it happen! We can devise many conditions that are completely under our control. We can watch an animal learn about themselves and the world around them. These animals are thinking and believing creatures by any apt criterion of what counts as thought, belief, and/or expectation.

The proof of thought/belief formation is in the pudding of the creature's own newly developed expectations. We can watch it happen. We can determine which things they will pay closer attention to. We can determine which things they draw mental correlations between. We can know that they have done this by watching their behavioural patterns. We can watch them draw correlations between different things to an extent that reaches far enough to be called irrefutable proof.

Let me digress, back to talking about a properly basic belief being - in principle - statable or not...

In principle, I can clearly state exactly what all thought and belief consist of, what they are, at their very core. Correlations drawn between different things. All of 'em. So, it's much better to say that my position leads to the inevitable conclusion that properly basic beliefs ought be of the simplest variety, and that when we're considering the contents of rudimentary belief we ought well know that they do not consist of statements, and they do not come in propositional form.

Our reports do.

They consist of statements. Our knowledge of non linguistic thought and belief most certainly does. I'm stating what our criterion for what counts as properly basic belief must be. I'm doing so in the simplest yet adequate means I know for adequately understanding properly basic belief.

Prelinguistic belief does not have propositional form. Predication does. Propositions do. Statements do.

Properly basic belief must be the very first ones. If not, then 'properly basic beliefs' would not be the first beliefs. The first beliefs are formed long before the creature acquires common language. This too is applicable to Platinga, unless I've misunderstood something. Plantinga claims that properly basic beliefs are not always groundless. Platinga wants to ground properly basic belief in life's circumstances, and is not at all wrong for doing so...

The animal cannot offer us a report of it's own mental ongoings. That's ok.

Not everything we discover is capable of telling us about what it is that we've just discovered. A language less animal's belief is one such thing, as is Mt. Everest...

Both existed in their entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices.

Taxes are better understood, much better understood...

...as user fees.

If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? — NOS4A2

It's a bit like being an American football player now involves wearing different equipment than 80 years ago. Still football players, just not the same equipment.

The problem is not the name or what Bernie stands for. It's the idea you have in your head regarding what counts as being a football player and what Bernie stands for.

The fix?

Fucking shut up and listen to the man.

Sanders speaks to a very broad range of people across the board of ethnic diversity. Americans come that way, you see. Sanders speaks to all poor people, all those who have struggled, all those who have been taken advantage of by predatory lending practices, which are now legal as a result of the sheer demolition of antitrust laws in America. Sanders knows how these things came to happen.

One cause... anti-trust laws being eviscerated and certain other consumer protection measures being reversed in the guise of de-regulation, an idea long since being argued for. As if all regulation is to be avoided, or is bad. It's often argued that too much regulation harms American businesses by virtue of increasing the financial burden that must be shouldered by a small business owner in America. It purportedly makes it impossible to afford to own and operate a smal business in America.

Another cause... the brainwashing of Americans into believing that regulations are a bad thing stemming from too big a government. Small government is an idea that the American electorate has bought hook, line, and sinker. It's an empty slogan used as a disguise. Not all regulation is bad or harmful to American small business owners. Some regulations are consumer protection measures. Others are necessary in order to maintain as free a society as is humanly possible given the differences in American world-views.

It should be illegal for someone to act as though they are offering a service to a consumer despite the fact that that service was designed in a way that that person would be placed in immediate financial danger and/or duress. Sometimes they're designed in such a way as to keep borrowers in debt - under legal financial obligation - to the lender for the majority of or even the entire rest of their natural born lives.

Antitrust laws are and aways were designed to stop that sort of thing from happening.

They worked. They were repealed and/or replaced with laws that did not. They stopped working either by intentional revocation or inferior replacement. Those were specifically designed out of the need to protect consumers from unethical, immoral business practices! That's a part of the government's job... to protect the citizens from living in such circumstances. We ought be able to trust the people we depend upon for our livelihood, for the necessities of American life, especially if we do not get to choose. If that choice is made for us, the chosen individual(s) must be trustworthy.

The 2008 financial crash is an exemplar of many many people being quantifiably harmed - being ruined in an actual visceral sense - as a direct consequence of how others had previously paved the road. The road crew consisted of real estate agents, lenders, and underwriters; at least at the ground level(the actual beginning of the implementation). The legislative roads were paved by the repeal of Glass Steagall and other atritrust laws and consumer protection measures that had already been taken as a result of the aforementioned malpractices. The repeal and removal of these consumer protection measures the increased number of financial instruments designed by those looking to make themselves rich by disguising high risk loans that were knowingly going to suffer the fate of borrower default. These financial instruments were carefully designed to meet the new less stringent legal standards. Those who knew the loans were very likely to be defaulted on cleverly disguised them as safe investment opportunities and sold them to yet another group of unsuspecting consumers. These junk loans reaped handsome immediate financial rewards for the designers as well as all those implementing the design.

Why and how can this happen?

After knowingly convincing the otherwise trusting would be home-owners that they were getting a good deal; one that they can afford; one that they meet the regulatory guidelines for, the mortgage companies(brokers) sold the mortgages based upon profits that were projected to be 'earned' by the compound interest rates of the mortgages. Traditionally, these types of instruments(mortgage backed securities) are low risk as a result of consisting of conforming mortgages. Those in question were not, but sold as if they were. These were sold to a variety of people from those investing in a 401k or an IRA through anyone else who depended upon the projected profit of loan as a result of the compound interest rates.

One problem, of course, is that many if not most of the problem mortgages were at a low fixed interest rate for a temporary time period. That rate was subject to change after a timeframe had passed. This change was a substantial financial increase in consumer costs in all cases. The borrowers debt level would raise substantially at the very moment that the higher rate took effect. The increase in the debt to income ratio would then be feasibly impossible for the borrower to maintain satisfying the financial obligation/agreement. All else being equal, these people could not afford the payment if and when it increased to the rate clearly stated in the truth in lending document.

So, why did such mortgages meet the new legal and consumer protection standards implemented in lieu of Glass Steagall?

The initial rate.

Why were they doomed to fail? Two reasons. One...

The adjustable arm rate was simply unaffordable for the borrower when and if it ever took effect; if it were ever executed. The buyers were often assured that that rate would not take effect if the payments were made on time regularly, because prior to the rate increase the borrower could easily re-finance to a lower rate. The house would be worth more as well, etc.

That promise was broken more often than it was kept.

Two...

Not one of these so-called service providers involved had a personal vested interest in the satisfaction of the loans themselves. Rather, some had a vested interest in their failure! Others were paid upfront. Elizabeth Warren shed some astounding light upon the matter underwriting the worldwide market crash of '08. She's been long since working on the issue of stagnant wages and a steep decline in the happiness of American homes dues to jobs losses and other socio-economically based problems.

Many of these people were also being negatively impacted by the exponential loss in good paying jobs available for them in their hometown area. Some of the borrowers were not only about to suffer great loss at work, they were also about to be quite unpleasantly surprised by the cascade of unfortunate events about to unfold as a result of suddenly losing their home as well as their financial livelihood/well-being.

Life changed in negative ways that were not expected for many through no real fault of their own aside from trusting the wrong people.

The actual quantity and the sheer scope of less fortunate communities increased exponentially when good paying manufacturing jobs left American shores as a means to lessen labor costs and increase profit margin(s). This sequence of events was a means to finacially reward the business owners at the direct and indirect expense of all Americans, not just those who earned their livelihood and were happy doing so in the building trades and/or manufacturing sectors.

I want remind people of that all too common narrative about taxes and big government being bad...

Small community oriented family operated and owned storefronts and businesses all across America have taken direct hits, knock-out blows, and other insurmountable problems as a direct result of allowing huge businesses to sell in the American marketplace despite the fact that they treat their workers in ways that are illegal in the States.

The actual cost of cheap goods and services cannot be properly determined by the purchase price alone.

The average ratio of Americans who are naturally inclined to be good at making things with their hands and do or would enjoy doing so has not decreased at all. The legislation that has been passed which fostered the conditions for American companies to move nearly all operations off American shores needs corrected because the sheer number of good paying American jobs with good benefits available for the average everyday worker is in sharp decline as a direct result.

Huge corporations, including both American and foreign owned ones, are allowed to implement business practices that make it impossible for small business owners to compete. They are also allowed to keep the average workweek at a part time level so they do not have to share the healthcare costs of the workers.

Ahem... and Walmart is not alone here.

The price of cheap goods is much higher than terms of retail cost can account for.

Every American can relate to a marketplace that is chock full 'o low quality inferior products. Things that break far sooner than they ought. Inferior grade low quality products result in more garbage in the world, less good paying jobs, and less successful small businesses. In the end, less available high quality products.

Walmart and other companies do not offer workers enough pay or insurance for part time. The workers are paid so low that they qualify for government assistance.

That's corporate welfare... socialism for the wealthiest corporations on earth.

I've said numerous times, I'd love to see Sanders win but that I just don't think it's on the cards. — Wayfarer

The 2020 US presidential election is not a foregone conclusion. To quite the contrary, I know many folk have a strong yet inexplicable disdain for the US government. Every poor and every less fortunate person in the US knows that US governmental policies have caused demonstrable and quantifiable harm to themselves and/or their loved ones. Very few know how it happened and who is responsible for it.

It's been both parties over the last fifty or so years.

The revolution is one of how we - as American citizens - ought think about things like our government and what it's doing. It's a frame of mind focused upon what's important to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and as such it's one that needs cultivated over a long enough time period. It's one based upon shedding some much need light upon systemic monetary political corruption at the highest levels of American government.

It's been long enough. There's more than enough evidence for Sanders to make the common sense case to those who are willing to listen. There are some people you just can't reach. Those are not the focus.

Sanders speaks to a very broad range of people across the board of ethnic diversity. Americans come that way, you see. Sanders speaks to all poor people, all those who have struggled, all those who have been taken advantage of by predatory lending practices, which are now legal as a result of the sheer demolition of antitrust laws in America. Sanders knows how these things came to happen.

Are the foundational beliefs warranted? What about justificatory regress?

My name is...

That is a tree. That is a cat. That is a banana.

These are basic... right? Or are they?

...beliefs that aren't derived from prior beliefs- these are the basic beliefs, the foundation for one's entire belief structure. — Relativist

Although it is quite clear that belief begins simply and grows in it's complexity, and is thus accrued in a way, I do not think that happens in a strictly linear fashion, although belief in God is close when one learns to talk like that from early on.

If you ever stop to say something is without need of justification, you're saying that it's beyond question, and therefore asking anyone who might disagree just to take your word for it, on faith. — Pfhorrest

While I do not entirely disagree... This is about thinking about belief(reporting upon belief), not what belief itself is. Another consequence of getting belief wrong to begin with.

What if the notion of "basic" amounts to something like being foundational to all other beliefs.
— creativesoul
That's exactly what a basic belief IS. — Relativist

Well, that's what's said about them anyway. In what way are they foundational? Is it a matter of existential dependency and elemental constituency, or is it one of value assessment? Belief in God would be a value assessment. That's the most important belief for some. In that way, it would be both basic and grounded upon other more basic beliefs. Belief that one knows what certain words mean comes prior to any and all belief in God. The latter is existentially dependent upon the former.

Then again... both establishments, the RNC and the DNC very well may do everything they can to avoid a Sanders presidency. By the weights and measures they use, it may be the case that Trump looks less harmful to their overall aims and goals than Bernie.

That would show everyone what the swamp looks like... that case would be one in which the swamp would prefer Trump(who claimed to have the goal of 'draining' it) over Bernie who knows exactly what needs fixing and how to go about getting it done...

Hopefully there are not enough corrupt politicians left in the DNC.

It's a slow and methodical change. Draw a line in the sand with the people on one side, and huge corporations, multi-national companies, and the mega-wealthy on the other. Make elected official choose.

Remember who chose against the good of the overwhelming majority in the next elections. Remove them. Ad infinitum. Eventually, every American will be in a much better position to live the American dream, because there will be many more elected officials doing their job and upholding the sworn duty to act on behalf of what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Bernie has long known that this is a slow process, but he also knew what to do in order to get it kickstarted.

Surely you're not really portraying Sanders in negative light... right?

they can’t vote for Sanders.
— Wayfarer

Of course they can. They are making strong implications that they won't. — ZhouBoTong

It's primary season, and the DNC does not want Sanders. When he wins outright, he'll remove their wiggle room, and they will not let their dislike of Sanders get in the way of their dislike of Trump. The more one actually listens to Sanders... the more sense it all makes. It's the second hand accounts, and opinons based upon insufficient information that will all be overcome after carefully listening to Sander's propositions and reasoning.

No one who was caught off-guard by underestimating voter turnout or Trump's ability to secure enough support to beat Clinton will allow that shit to happen again, assuming that their worldview is much the same as it was four years back. Give Sanders the national spotlight. Place him on stage with Donald John Trump, and watch school start for all those willing to learn.

The most pleasant slaughter that one may ever see.

I cannot wait.

:wink:

I do not think that Sanders would approve of the manner in which you argue in support of his platform. To be fair, I'm sure he'd scold me as well...

The articles goes to pains to argue that it's not a justificatory relationship between a basic belief and something else which grounds it, it's something more like a practical one.
— fdrake

Indeed, it does; but does it succeed? — Banno

Not by my lights.

Although, I agree that basic belief does not have the same sort of justification/grounding as statements of belief that are called "basic". Basic belief... properly basic belief... is prior to language.

Some belief is prior to language. Thus, if we call some of these "basic", then the something that grounds it would be what's happened, and/or is happening... Being a part of the world grounds properly basic belief(the collapse of the distinction between us and nature). Plantinga skirted around this with the bits about sitting at desks and knee pain...

Something else occurred to me tonight, largely due to Un's participation...

What if the notion of "basic" amounts to something like being foundational to all other beliefs. In that sense, and under the right sorts of conditions/circumstances, Plantinga offers as good an argument as it gets for belief in God being basic/foundational.

In the context of being raised in religious communities, certain members of that community could very well have a belief in God that is rightfully, sensibly, and positively correctly said to be as basic as it gets... if being basic amounts to being foundational/fundamental to all other operative belief in the candidate's worldview.

From the paper on pg.1(41)

Some of my beliefs, however, I accept but don't accept on the basis of any other beliefs. Call these beliefs basic. I believe that 2 + 1 = 3, for example, and don't believe it on the basis of other propositions. I also believe that I am seated at my desk, and that there is a mild pain in my right knee.

This exemplifies this issue I'm pointing out here. The conflation of belief and propositions. Besides that, even if we grant that all beliefs have propositional content, one simply cannot believe that 2+1=3 without first believing that they know what those marks mean. This mark(2) refers to this quantity, etc...

One cannot believe that one is seated at a desk, unless one first knows what a desk is, etc...

One cannot believe that there is a mild pain in one's right knee, unless one knows how to distinguish between the severity of pains... mild, severe, etc...

All of these may be called "basic" or "properly basic" if we allow our search for basic belief to be guided by a gross misunderstanding of belief, such as working from an utterly inadequate criterion for belief to begin with. None of those beliefs are existentially independent from language use. All of them are existentially dependent upon language constructs. Yet, because belief is not properly understood, it is mistakenly believed to be dependent upon language, so no one bats an eye when people say things like Plantinga claimed here.

These are all consequences stemming from having belief wrong to begin with.

I enjoy the conceptual machinery here. Basic beliefs spring from a context of activity, if one has a context involving God, belief in God is basic. The interesting question in my book is the status of being basic; is it a property of a statement, is it a binary relationship between a statement and a context, or is it a ternary relationship between a statement and a context and an event or activity? — fdrake

I agree that the status of a basic belief is an interesting question. However, knowing that requires knowing what beliefs are. The context of belief formation is imperative for it provides us with the information needed in order to be able to identify the content of the belief(s) in question. I do not think that Plantinga or current convention has belief right to start with, so they're bound to get what counts a properly basic one wrong as well. In OC, Witt struggled with setting out hinge propositions(his notion of basic - bedrock - belief) for the same reasons...

Did anyone read the article?

It seemsto me that the error is in thinking...

...that a belief is properly basic only in certain conditions; these conditions are, we might say, the ground of its justification and, by extension, the ground of the belief itself. In this sense, basic beliefs are not, or are not necessarily, groundless beliefs.

There seems to me a contradiction involved in setting out basic beliefs as dependent on anything. — Banno

The articles goes to pains that it's not a justificatory relationship between a basic belief and something else, it's something more like a practical one. If one sees a tree, in normal circumstances one may hold that one sees a tree, and infer that the tree exists. The inference there is not an act of cognition, it is a practical presupposition, like that "I am holding a fork" is true when one is holding a fork. The argument construes belief in "God exists" in precisely the same manner as belief that forks exists while holding them.

While I disagree with the conclusions, I enjoy the conceptual machinery here. Basic beliefs spring from a context of activity, if one has a context involving God, belief in God is basic. The interesting question in my book is the status of being basic; is it a property of a statement, is it a binary relationship between a statement and a context, or is it a ternary relationship between a statement and a context and an event or activity? — fdrake

The claim that properly basic beliefs are not necessarily(always) groundless causes a bit of confusion. Banno is right to point this out. If a belief is grounded, then it's always grounded upon another more basic belief, unless one holds that well grounded belief needs no language(as I do). Plantinga does not seem to work from that though...

However, Platinga is right to focus upon the context involving basic beliefs. Such consideration is imperative to our understanding them.

The bit about the tree may lead somewhere interesting and useful. If one holds that one sees a tree, then what is that holding if not a belief that one sees a tree? I don't think it's helpful to then say that one further infers that the tree exists, and that that inference amounts to some special sort of practical presupposition. To quite the contrary, that's all quite wrong on it's face.

Holding that one sees something(a tree in this case) is a basic belief. At the most basic level of belief, prior to language use, when one sees a tree one cannot help but to believe that they are seeing something. That belief is inevitable, in that such pre-linguistic beliefs cannot possibly be doubted. Such beliefs are required in order to learn the names of things, such as that that is(called) "a tree". Thus, they facilitate language acquisition altogether. Earlier, relativist broached this consideration a bit. It deserves more discussion, for these are the times in which basic beliefs are formed, and they do not consist of statements of belief, whether they be grounded or groundless.

What is the bare minimum criterion for what counts as a belief? What do all belief have in common such that that's what makes them beliefs?

My own position is foundationalist, I suppose one could say. But I've not really seen a good criterion for a properly basic belief in the paper, because I have yet to have seen a criterion for belief itself.

A properly basic belief, would be a belief formed and held prior to language use. Those are not propositional, for the believing creature has no language, and propositions require language. I'm also not too sure about calling them "innate" either...

I'll read the paper again. I've read through once and then skimmed again. Seems that what I'm raising here needs parsed out, to me at least...

Seems the paper and the thread are going to hinge upon what counts as properly basic, or basic beliefs...

This, of course, requires first clarifying exactly what counts as a belief in the first place. Platinga seems to be talking about propositions.

Trumps financial ties to Deutsche Bank are currently being investigated. Some of them look like he is a participant in money laundering....

And that's from a Democratic think tank! — Wayfarer

Honestly, aside from abortion rights and gun laws... there's little to no difference between the left and right as far as American politics goes... Bernie has been saying so for decades. Both sides have erred on the side of huge corporate interests. Both sides have decimated public protections. As I said ad nauseum... Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom thereof.

Bernie's ability to draw a clean line in the sand will result in increased numbers of support, even from those who currently believe the bullshit being bandied about. National coverage of him speaking on the fly, such as in debates, will change minds and increase his support. As his coverage has increased, so too has his support. That's why Clinton refused to debate.

It's not a quick fix, and he knows it.

There are certain pieces of legislation that have led to the current wealth gap and all of the problems most everyone agrees on.

Guess who fought hard against them at the time, sometimes being the only nay?

That is the kind of person needed.