My theory is that with only two parties, political identity becomes much more entrenched. Part of that identity is hating the other party so even if an amoeba runs for your side, you're still going to vote for it because it's not the other side.

But on the other hand, he’s such a deeply pathological liar that he may have convinced himself somewhere along the way that what he was saying was true. — Mikie

Not relevant with respect to the intent that matters. It's not what he believed to be true. I can believe you're part of a Martian invasion and kill you, it's still going to be murder because my intent was to bring about your death. The reason for that could be a mitigating circumstance but in itself is not relevant for establishing intent.

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. What "group" are you exactly a member of? Or are you just making things up in the hopes we take your unidentified problems serious?

That's not any clearer. What challenges specifically Mr "I'm in a vague, no-name science and technology group but I cannot get beyond hand waving at problems and whining about tone"?

I belong to a science and technology group where the consensus has long been that there's no way to avoid climate change. — frank

Spell out that position more clearly because stated like this it's patently absurd.

Obviously you don't "get it" because that's a misrepresentation of what I said.

blah blah. Just another red herring. The question is whether Trump committed a crime, which is a legal question, not whether what he did was a crime. I'm not appealing to the law. I'm explaining it to you so your tiny reptilian brain can reason it's way to a sensible position instead of verbally tossing Trump's salad all the time.

The whole victim shtick is a red herring. It's irrelevant. Euthanasia doesn't have a victim either but is still illegal. Attempts at crimes are victimless as well, still prosecuted. Jaywalking, not wearing a seat belt, speeding etc. All victimless, all prosecuted. You see a conspiracy this quickly then you should certainly see one with Trump. But you don't which is just a sad consequence of your boring biases.

Victims are not required. Failed attempts at crimes can be convicted as well. As to the particular acts, they are set out in the writ of summons or whatever that's called in the US. Whether they can prove intent with respect to the conspiracies is another. I think the classified documents case is much simpler to prove because they are general intent crimes.

Not by every method.

Even if he believed it was stolen, yes, even if it was stolen, stealing it back isn't lawful.

Edit: meaning criminal intent can arise irrespective of what he believed to be the case. It is sufficient that he intended the result of the conspiracy.

How is it winning exactly if I must spend resources on adaptation when I'd rather spend time on leisure?

While you cannot infer intent from the act itself, it's still possible to infer it from other acts before that. For instance, you had a prior fight with the person, went to the store to buy a gun and then went to their house, we have a clear case for intent without a confession.

Are you here pretending this hasn't been extensively dealt with in the IPCC? The limited local benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's not a balancing act at all. We overwhelmingly lose.

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits — Agree to Disagree

This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some.

For general intent crimes juries will be instructed to infer intent from the proof of the act. The federal documents case mostly has general intent crimes I think, as they do not aim at a specific result that mens rea should be aimed at.

The Jan. 6 case though, does require the prosecution to establish that Trump's intent was aimed at the result of the conspiracies. There are restrictions on admitting testimony from others about what Trump said due to "hearsay" not being admissable evidence. So yes, we should ignore Bannon's statements insofar as they are interpreted as going to the heart of Trump's intent. However, they corroborate with actual acts by Trump (declaring himself the winner), which in a constellation acts and facts can result as proof of intent. And that constellation of facts seems quite clear to me, the speech, the claims Pence could make him President, the claim of being the winner despite the official results contradicting him, etc. etc. They were all aimed at refusing the official outcome and being made President. There's no adequate alternative explanation as the acts are a concerted effort.

Returning member under a different name?

How pathetic would it be if it's Trump vs. Biden again?

Mr. Sock then. Obviously.

Stop spouting propaganda. There was no Russian hoax. Mueller's report showed several issues that could've been prosecuted.

All the facts concerning his crimes are in the past. Unlike you I've got a good grasp of criminal law.

Like almost everything American nowadays it's a show. It's been politicised, precisely as Trump wanted, in which law, evidence and facts no longer are relevant. Of course you'll be disappointed.

I don't know why everyone is arguing with NOS4A2. Trump will go to jail. He'll never except that. Nobody gives a shit.

Did you even read what Michael wrote? Because your answer has no bearing on the examples given under a, b, d and e.

I'm sure with your psychology degree the vegetables are a bit more depressed nowadays.

1982 for me. I was 4 at the time.

That was it. I just think it's funny someone would demand people not discuss US politics in a... checks notes... thread about Trump. I saw a parallel and pounced on it like a kitten.

I wish you Americans would stop making unreasonable demands of the rest of the world and then act surprised we take issue with it and have a commensurate enjoyment when you idiots elect idiots and still like to play at being "leader of the free world" causing more trouble than China and Russia combined.

They’re all plutocratic criminals that get special treatment. That being said, Trump is in a league of his own. — Mikie

Yes, the league of "too stupid not to get caught".

Oh, just wait until it slightly cools of again since we might be in the top of the current Solar Cycle and then all the denialists will be "it was the Solar Cycle stupid!".

Cycle 25
Main article: Solar cycle 25
Solar cycle 25 began in December 2019.[19] Several predictions have been made for solar cycle 25[20] based on different methods, ranging from very weak to strong magnitude. A physics-based prediction relying on the data-driven solar dynamo and solar surface flux transport models by Bhowmik and Nandy (2018) seems to have predicted the strength of the solar polar field at the current minima correctly and forecasts a weak but not insignificant solar cycle 25 similar to or slightly stronger than cycle 24.[21] Notably, they rule out the possibility of the Sun falling into a Maunder-minimum-like (inactive) state over the next decade. A preliminary consensus by a solar cycle 25 Prediction Panel was made in early 2019.[22] The Panel, which was organized by NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) and NASA, based on the published solar cycle 25 predictions, concluded that solar cycle 25 will be very similar to solar cycle 24. They anticipate that the solar cycle minimum before cycle 25 will be long and deep, just as the minimum that preceded cycle 24. They expect solar maximum to occur between 2023 and 2026 with a sunspot range of 95 to 130, given in terms of the revised sunspot number. — Wiki

That's exactly what happened in Sweden. The purchase was illegal, the sale wasn't. :up:

The wage inflation spiral is total nonsense. If my bread is made up of grains, water, oven time, heating, bakery space etc. and labor, and the price of labor goes up, then the price will only rise as much as it is part of the cost of making bread. A 10% increase in wages then would cause at most 1% increase in bread prices. Wage price increases are automatically dampened by the fact it's only a component of a resulting price.

In fact, there are countries that have legally mandatory inflation corrections for salaries in certain sectors, like Belgium, and not once since those laws were passed have they had to deal with a wage inflation spiral.

And that's not even going into the nonsense that's "price stability" in the first place, which benefits no one except financial institutions.

My choices have nothing to do with me pointing out the fact that bio-dynamic farming leads to better results. It's an important fact in light of large agro-businesses (stock feed companies, fertiliser producers, industrialised butchers) insisting they are fundamentally needed in this world when their practises and those they promote with their users, clients and suppliers make the Netherlands less livable each year.

I'd wish I could get all my foodstuffs locally but alas I'm stuck with cheese and eggs.

Adoption of the necessary policies has to do a lot with framing as well I think. You shouldn't do XY and Z or the world will burn! Or maybe: "If we do XY and Z we will have more nature, more free time and more security". It's governments now going down the road of the techocratic control of society, which is, if we're not careful, a prelude to fascism but in any case just raises a shit ton of resistance and distrust at a time where trust and solidarity need to be peak. Leaders who can bridge these gaps are what we need but leaders like that don't tend to go into politics because who in their right mind would be passionate about the shitfest that's modern politics nowadays?

recent research in the Netherlands: Biodynamic farming turns out to have better soil quality and therefore higher yields of crop without spending any money on fertiliser because, surprise surprise, nature is perfectly capable of making stuff grow efficiently. Nature is cheap and efficient if you let it do its thing.

Nothing to see here. Carry on.

Interesting how your can theoretically pardon yourself. Very ethically sound.

I'm merely stating what the epistemological claims can be. That has no bearing whatsoever as to philosophical realism or not.

This is a non sequitur. That an event cannot be predicted with certainty isn't that the event isn't certain. Or to phrase it another way, even if we cannot know (with certainty) whether or not "there is intelligent alien life in the Andromeda Galaxy" is true, it doesn't follow that it isn't true (or false). — Michael

That the event is certain to you in your frame of reference is irrelevant to my frame of reference. For us to exchange that information at (sub-)light speeds, brings your event within my frame of reference. The "elsewhere", e.g. anything outside my frame of reference, is incoherent to be talking about as it doesn't exist for me. When the information is exchanged, it's already in my frame of reference.

EDIT: this is why it's useful to realise that when you actually observe the event happening in your frame of reference, you're 15 lightdays away from me, which will then be your present and I'll still not be aware of it. You notify me it's coming and by the time that information reaches me, the light of the event is there as well. Until that time there's no way for me to know what's coming.

:rofl:

no. https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/block-universe-refuting-common-argument/