There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red.
— creativesoul

Do you want to be able to claim to have a red nothing in storage? — Banno

:brow:

That's pure unadulterated nonsense when one realizes and works from the supposition that everything and nothing are not equivalent. Realizing it is easy enough.

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red.

Right?

I don't know Banno. Once you've committed to a domain, you can no longer use common sense...

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red.

Right?

That's not a derivation, but it's true nonetheless.

Good to know I'm not alone. I'm not at all on board with what god must be atheist has been arguing, yet something was worth being said...

...(if there are zero things to be had and you have all zero of them), — Pfhorrest

Practically unused cases like the above?

Chris tells us that everything in their storage is red.
We still don't know whether they have anything at all in their storage (because "everything" might be nothing, if they don't have anything at all in their storage. — Pfhorrest

This equivalence between everything and nothing troubles me as well.

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red. If nothing is in the storage then it cannot be the case that everything in the storage is red.

C.S. Peirce has suddenly become so influential particularly in biological sciences; because his work on semiotics... — Wayfarer

Draws a distinction between syntax and semantics as a means to take account of meaning. That's a fatal flaw. Both syntax and semantics consist of and are therefore existentially dependent upon common language use. Meaning, in it's most basic rudimentary form, is not. Hence, the fatal flaw of inherent inadequacy to be able to properly account for all meaning.

So, you don't have a stance...

Just curious. Simple question.

What is your stance on whether or not the Senate should subpoena witnesses(if necessary) when it begins the next step of the impeachment process, including but not necessarily limited to those people who Trump purportedly ordered to not appear/testify?

I was hoping for a serious discussion about the facts relevant to Trump's actions. — Relativist

Then you ought be all for the Senate proceedings including hearing the testimony of those purportedly ordered by Trump to not testify.

Do not be misled by such talk... it's nothing more than hyperbole and rhetorical drivel...

There is no proof for being a witch.

There is more than enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of obstruction. That obstruction is more than adequate ground for further concluding Trump's guilt of gross dereliction of duty. Trump has breached his contract with America to faithfully uphold the Constitution(and it's processes) and executing the powers granted to the office. He is obstructing Constitutional processes by virtue of endeavoring to influence them in at least the following way...

Endeavoring to influence a witness not to testify or to make himself/herself unavailable to testify.

There are key witnesses in the White House who can verify/falsify this charge. It has been charged that Trump has ordered them to not testify. Those charges need to be argued for. Part of that argument includes hearing from those who purportedly received such orders.

The relevant code has been put forth already. To deny their relevance is to neglect their importance. The Constitution was deliberately written in protest to the power of the monarchy. I grant the founders enough common sense to include the ability to effectively remove a president who has has proven themselves unfit for the office.

The relevant code is the one Michael offered, and it is the guarantee that the people can remove a president who does not satisfy the sworn promise to the people that they will uphold the Constitution and it's processes, including but not limited to congressional oversight... impeachment proceedings.

That language applies equally to Devon Nunez's behaviour(coordinating with the accused and sharing the details of the investigation with the accused and/or their representatives) regarding the initial oversight committee.

I want to change the subject... sort of...

There are many Trump supporters and non supporters alike who buy into the witch hunt explanation. They believe that there are some government officials who are doing everything in their power to remove Trump, and these people will do whatever it takes to get the job done.

Perfect. I stopped short. Thanks for that much needed clarification.

Convictions under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 have been based on the following conduct:

Endeavoring to suborn perjury.
Endeavoring to influence a witness not to testify or to make himself/herself unavailable to testify.
Giving false denials of knowledge and memory, or evasive answers. False testimony may be a basis for conviction, ; however, false testimony, standing alone, is not an obstruction of justice.
Falsifying a report likely to be submitted to a grand jury.
Destroying, altering, or concealing subpoenaed documents.
Endeavoring to sell grand jury transcripts.
Offering to sell a guarantee of a jury acquittal to a defense counsel.
Endeavoring to influence, through a third party, a judge.
Deliberately concealing one's identity thereby preventing a court from gathering information necessary to exercise its discretion in imposing a sentence.
Obtaining secret grand jury testimony.
Submitting false or misleading information to the grand jury. .
Refusing to testify before the grand jury.

Now there is something that causes me pause...

Obstruction of justice requires acts designed to thwart some aspect of the government's judicial function. Investigations conducted by the FBI, Internal Revenue Service or some other governmental agency do not constitute judicial proceedings...

So...

I'm not sure how this applies to impeachment proceedings, if at all???

The evidence for Trump endeavoring to influence at least three different investigations is overwhelming. The proof is on video many times over.

But it's bigger than that!

He swore to uphold the Constitution, which includes upholding the processes outlined therein. His blatant negative and disparaging remarks about Constitutionally outlined processes and those in charge of executing them is undeniable and it serves as prima facie evidence of his gross dereliction of duty as well as obstruction.

Trump is guilty of obstruction.

No...

The term "or" provides the segue for different ways to be guilty... "corruptly" is just one 'way'... endeavoring to is another...

That one is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump admits of it.

No.

You don't get to just make up your own facts here. The United States Department of Justice created the omnibus clause. Here it is in it's entirety...

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).

That is the omnibus clause...

What would obstruction look like to you? What would count as Trump obstructing and/or impeding the investigations into himself?

:brow:

You claim that nothing has been done. What would have to be?

The omnibus clause is the factor. If that’s proven one is guilty of obstruction of justice. — NOS4A2

From the United States Department of Justice...

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence...

Trumps only agenda is to influence both the Mueller investigation and the current impeachment proceedings...

He is guilty of exactly that, and the evidence of that is overwhelming.

A proposition is what "it is raining", "il pleut" and "pada deszcz" have in common. — Banno

I would think that they are talking about the same thing... They all have a directly perceptible common referent...

Rain.

What would obstruction look like to you? What would count as Trump obstructing and/or impeding the investigations into himself?

:brow:

You claim that nothing has been done. What would have to be?

There is hard evidence that proves Russian interference with the 2016 election. That is corruption of the most serious kind. Trump and the Republican party has done nothing to insure it does not happen again...
— creativesoul
Trump welcomes interference, if it's in support of him. Did you read about Putin's recent press conference, and Trump proudly tweeting a positive quote of Putin's? — Relativist

No.

The point I'm making is that if Trump was actually so concerned with corruption, he would have done everything in his power to insure that our next election could not be interfered with in the same way as 2016.

He has not. Thus, he clearly is not. The claims of him being concerned about corruption are a ruse...

Pure unadulterated bullshit!

That shows a lack of imagination. — Banno

Me???

:lol:

Surely you jest. Maths are beyond my understanding. I don't want to be a bullshitter!

:wink:

I'll watch. Have fun.

There is hard evidence that proves Russian interference with the 2016 election. That is corruption of the most serious kind. Trump and the Republican party has done nothing to insure it does not happen again...

Dereliction of duty bordering on treason.

Executives exercising executive privilege is a matter of course, not an impeachable offence. — NOS4A2

As far as I know, none of the three you mentioned gave a direct order for witness to ignore subpoena into an investigation of the president's own behaviour.

What exactly would obstruction look like to you? What would count as such?

I’m not sure it will hold up in court, but Obama, Bush and Clinton all evoked executive privilege to stonewall congressional investigations. Should they be impeached? — NOS4A2

Irrelevant to this situation. Red herring.

Even if they ought, it does not fucking matter here. In fact, if they ought to have been but were not, then we certainly ought to follow the rules now, for that has been part of the problem... if they ought to have been, that is.

...

A president does not have the privilege of failing to uphold his sworn oath.

Trump has executive privilege. — NOS4A2

A president does not have the privilege of obstructing an investigation into his behaviour...

More Fox rhetorical drivel.

Clinton's crime was lying under oath about a blowjob. The impeachment of Clinton was not about his lying about a blowjob.

Fer fuck's sake.

Trump ordered different people to not honor the subpoena to testify.

That is obstruction.

To anyone interested... the "On Bullshit" thread offers a perfect explanation of NOS's contributions here...

His testimony is not at all about what's true, but rather it's about convincing the audience, by whatever means necessary...

It is the weakest impeachment case in American history — NOS4A2

Are you aware that Clinton was only found guilty of lying about a blowjob?

It's not about democrat talking points... the irony... as I said... listen to the relevant testimony, particularly the testimony of the professors of Constitutional law and how they explain the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors"...

The evidence for obstruction is overwhelming in both this impeachment proceeding and the Mueller investigation. Watch the congressional hearing testimony concerning it and what counts as high crimes and misdemeanors. Or keep on sticking your head in the Fox news sand...

Love is a self-serving concept. Each person has their own conception - so to speak - of what one is supposed to do when one is in love. Some people find monogamy a pivotal element of love, and others do not. Some people find certain ways of communicating to be acceptable, and others do not.

In all cases, when one acts out of love, they follow their own conception of how one is supposed to act out of love.

The trick, of course, is finding someone who has much the same conception or one that is different but compatible.

So much for that.

So for a real-world example, let us say that I become homeless and need help to get back on my feet. Let's also assume that all state/fed social safety nets that might once have helped me out have been dismantled by the Godfearing Trump administration and that my only salvation can be found in religious social programs. Having benefited from their help, I'm compelled to convert to conservativism and henceforth use my voting power to further the conservative agenda, as well as generously donate to the church.

Is that about how it's supposed to work? — praxis

I'm not sure if it is all supposed to work that way... that would require a tremendous amount of forethought as well as preceding action taken in step by step fashion...

Perhaps you're overestimating those who seek to end public assistance programs.

However, I'm sure that the scenario you've put forth most certainly happens to some people, by chance. However, I'm absolutely certain that there are quite a few folk who call themselves "Christian" in the US that are disgusted with much of Trump's behaviour.

It's an image, Mr Wittgenstein. Of course she does not know what a dog that has bee run over feels like. But you yourself supposed that one can be certain when someone is in pain, upon seeing them writhing before you. You must have some idea of what it might be like to be a sick dog. — Banno

Yeah... I wasn't impressed much regarding his anecdotal account of Pascal's thought and belief about Witt's attitude.