Dual career ladders are great but not enough companies have them. A good manager for true subject experts is basically having a secretary that does all the crap you don't want to do.

But why not? If an alternative candidate would stand he/she is allowed to try to persuade the pledged delegates because they aren't strictly held to vote for Biden.

That's what he must do - it can't be taken from him, he has to pass it on, and I'm sure he will. — Wayfarer

People keep saying this but contested conventions have happened. Isn't that a process where it can be taken from him?

If the files aren’t as one found them there is no way to know the contents are accurate. Not only that but they lied to the court about it. Looks like you’re parrottting Jack Smith verbatim. — NOS4A2

That's a dumb comment for a variety of reasons. How do they know the order changed? Because the FBI records. So we have a record of what was in it before the contents were shuffled. It's legally an inane point as to establishing what was kept and therefore no more than a delaying tactic. This was all from your link by the way. Maybe you should just learn to read instead of jerking off and getting excited because you think you're onto something everytime you read something critical about the government.

In fact, it’s a double lie because you refuse to mention (even suspiciously removing it from the sentance you quoted) the failings of that investigation as discovered in subsequent investigations. — NOS4A2

First of all, I'm only quoting you so far. I assume you remember what you wrote a few hours ago so not sure what you're going on about. Whatever failings the investigation had, none of them gave rise to indictments, and none of them discount the multiple crimes Müller established in his investigation. The lie was yours to pretend the Müller report was fraudulent and didn't establish any crimes. It did. Multiple ones.

His name is Mueller, not Müller.

Sorry, but “the investigation did not establish that the
Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.

What Kremlin influence on the presidency are you speaking about? — NOS4A2

It's Müller where I'm from since we actually know how to spell a German name, so tough luck. In any case, Müller has repeatedly refused to exonerate Trump and he did so for a reason. So it's a misrepresentation on your part because you fail to include the fact that while the investigation doesn't prove it, it's because they were frustrated continuously in their investigation. In other words it was neither wasteful or fraudulent and should've been investigated further.

That’s spoliation of evidence or mishandling of classified documents. What do you call it? — NOS4A2

Irrelevant. If you think the order of the files in a specific box has any relevance as to the evidence of the content of that box then please make a cogent argument to that effect but on the face of it, it's just another delay.

When a wasteful and fraud investigation didn't turn up Kremlin influence in the presidency — NOS4A2

This is a false representation of the Müller report. Stop lying.

The classified documents case might have occurred before the election had they not bungled it, tampered with evidence, or tried use it to influence the election. — NOS4A2

Not sure what you're referring to. Has there been a decision on this or are you just parroting Trump lawyers verbatim?

50 is old. Presidents should be 50 at the most. I'm 45 and I read a lot and make music so I can't say my brain isn't regularly used and I can tell my retention rate for information is a fraction of what it used to be. I can barely memorise new pieces and forget them in a few months after I do but will play your anything I learned when I was a teenager.

:lol: It's funny because it's true. But you'll get another candidate instead of Biden.

Here's Pelosi throwing Biden under the bus:

https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/pelosi-biden-s-mental-fitness-is-legitimate-question-recommends-interviews-with-serious-journalists-214089797740

I'm much more confident now that he'll be replaced before the election.

Probably not but hopefully you and others find the facts (or at least my interpretations of them) interesting.

It's not about the kill count. It's really sad that after so many pages of discussion you reduce the position of people on the other side of the debate to strawmen, kindergarten arguments. Maybe a philosophy forum isn't for you.

You're equivocating strong and weak with oppressor and oppressed. Which really is silly.

What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. @Tobias maybe you want to have a look as well but I find the media reporting on this ridiculous and dissenting opinion confused.

Sure. But why would anyone need immunity from prosecution? Because they broke the law. Why would anyone want immunity? Because they did and they will.

Would you ever say to a parent, "Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"? — tim wood

All civil servants have civil immunity. Judges and prosecutors even have absolute or qualified immunity.

"Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"?

But this is exactly what happens. Anti-vaxxers get to not vaccinate their kids. Other people get to vaccinate. Some people teach them to believe in fairy tales. Some love their kids, some don't. You cannot be prosecuted for bad parenting, only for things that clearly fall outside of your responsibilities and obligations as parents. And the ruling is the same; everything a President does within the remit of the powers conferred to him is protected by immunity and even then they could be prosecuted if prosecuting poses no danger or intrusion on the authority and functions of the Edecutive Branch.

Addendum Barrett (this points to an ultra vires argument I already mentioned):

"The Court leaves open the possibility that the Constitution forbids prosecuting the President for any official conduct, instructing the lower courts to address that question in the first instance. ... I would have answered it now. Though I agree that a President cannot be held criminally liable for conduct within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority and closely related acts,... the Constitution does not vest every exercise of executive power in the President’s sole discretion, " — Barrett

Although the decision itself is silent on it. Barret at least would allow prosecution of official acts if:

"applying it in the circumstances poses no “‘dange[r] of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” — Barrett

and then continues:

"For example, the indictment alleges that the President “asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing” about election fraud claims.The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power." — Barrett

It seems Sotomayer is of the opinion that there's no immunity for former Presidents from criminal prosecution. The immunity is in place for current Presidents only as not to worry about prosecution when acting in an official capacity. That reason for immunity would be undermined if Presidents have to worry about criminal liability once they are former Presidents. Immunity covers, for instance, decisions to go to war or how to run it, etc. The act must be judged against the rules that apply at the time the decision is made, which is as then-current President and not as former President. I think that principle should be rigourous in its application.

Treating it differently is like having a bread, eating it and then pretending there never was a bread. It doesn't make sense to me.

Reading the ruling, I still think there's enough room to prosecute where "content, form and context" points to the President speaking in an unofficial capacity. And as the court clearly states:

"The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office."

And this is really no different from other countries. You need to establish an act by an official is either "ultra vires" or "unofficial".

I can't find issue with the ruling so far but will read Sotomayer's dissenting opinion as well before giving a final opinion but wanted to give you a first reaction.

Doesn't the democratic party have internal rules to force a candidate to step down?

Jesus. How callous and depraved. It directly targets civilians and disproportionality affects the weak. Horrible.

This has become more actual again now that Biden turns out to be a demented nutjob holding onto power for no apparent good reason, making sure the Democrats will lose. Now that Trump is pretty much a shoe in, what should the EU do and what can we expect with respect to, for instance, Ukraine?

@ssu @Tzeentch thoughts?

So, technically speaking, what would be options to replace Biden as a candidate? At what time and who can do it?

I advise you to read the report and make up your own mind. My take away, there was Russian interference, Trump welcomed it and there were a lot of connections between his team and Russian assets. Lack of evidence (in part due to obstruction) and the limitations of the investigation itself meant not everything could be fully investigated. It's not an open or shut case either way. And at least the obstruction were actual crimes that nobody was ever prosecuted for.

Also, wasn't the whole Russia-gate thing proven to be bullshit, just like 99.9% of everything that's written in the media? — Tzeentch

If you mean the Müller enquiry then no, it wasn't Bullshit.

it's only 4 years. Probably that is the main consideration to do fuck all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: US elections are for Democrats to lose or win. The GOP ought to be largely irrelevant due to its dwindling base resulting from demographic changes, but here we are with them goosestepping in line with the orange clown actually having a serious chance to win.

I have exactly zero trust in the average intelligence of people. They do not have a historical perspective so don't understand fascism.

That is true. That one is the beneficiary of a transaction doesn't mean he should be. At some point one must prove he is entitled to the benefits. As an uninvited third party, the tax collector cannot provide that proof, therefor he should not be the beneficiary of the transaction. — NOS4A2

Are you going to pretend you don't read my posts? I've already established that transactional agreement is no moral basis for a claim to the benefits of such transaction. So if you have no moral claim, it's not yet established the tax collector has no moral claim either.

You first need to prove that a transactional agreement also forms the moral basis for a claim to the benefits to that agreement. I say it doesn't exist because the transaction does not take into account moral outcomes and the economic system we live in incentives immoral outcomes as moral outcomes come at a premium.

Your only reply so far is "but I had an agreement". This does not engage in any shape or form the argument I've presented.

you don't have morality only a procedure.

That you are the beneficiary of a transaction doesn't mean you should be.

You are reading a lot of Bullshit into what I said and building a straw man the size of Mount Everest.

For example, the illustration that moral standards are managed as costs in transactions is not an argument for regulation but an argument against leaving moral outcomes to markets.

Transactional agreement does not lead to moral outcomes, in fact, it leads to the opposite. For you to claim a right to pre-tax income is a moral claim but it's not supported because there was a transactional agreement. So this is insufficient for your claim. (edit) your claim that taxation is theft. If you cannot put a moral claim on pre-tax income, there's no theft in a moral sense (only in the legal sense).

I'm all for deregulation actually. Starting with all the fictitious legal persons the law allows like corporations. It will immediately lead to much more moral outcomes due to better balance between market actors across all levels of the value chain.

When you offer me something in return for my labor, and we both agree, and the transaction is satisfied, that’s a moral transaction. — NOS4A2

Wrong. Agreement is irrelevant. We could agree because you threatened my wife, or because we're family and I'm partial, or simply because I like you and not the next guy. These are merely economic transactions, not moral ones. You need to be deeply steeped in a capitalist society to equate economic transactions with moral ones, so the mistake is understandable but it's a rather simplistic and unexamined position. That's where almost everything goes wrong with most of your thinking.

Moral claims are about who deserves what but market transactions are not concerned with moral outcomes at all. We can be fairly certain that whatever economic outcome we have, it is in fact an immoral one because rarely do people get what they deserve. That's a logical consequence for morality not having a market value and to the extent governments enforce certain (moral) standards, they are always introduced as a cost from an economic perspective, whereas a moral act benefits a society. Which really is just another example that the economic system not only does not aim at moral outcomes but actually encourages the opposite.

The Bangladeshi is paid too little for the pants he sows, his neighbour is affected by the toxic dyes that are unregulated there and you pay an exorbitant amount for the same pants considering the low quality (which fall apart after about a year), while being brainwashed to think the quality is acceptable and you need new pants next year (no wait, every other season) to stay fashionable. This conduct killed local tailors who couldn't compete fairly and in the end everybody is worse off. But hey, everybody "agreed" to the underlying transactions; so it's all fine and dandy and you can rest easy that as long as the market runs free, everybody gets what they deserve.

And this is today. Back when we had unregulated markets, it was down right horrible. But maybe read a bit about the industrial revolution and, later on, robber barons, etc.

You're repeating questions I've answered several times in this very thread. Maybe start paying attention. I'll ignore this post as a result because I'm not in the mood to ieper myself.

Taxation is legitimate as well. Proxy powers over children as well. Both are legal concepts, both are laws.

Wages and contracts are legal concepts, protected and enforced by states. They are not moral concepts. Your claim to your wages are protected under law, while morally you are most likely not supposed to be the beneficiary of most economic transactions. This is because economic transactions are not moral transactions, and only moral claims can considered to exist intrinsically. There is therefore no moral claim to wages under a contract, let alone to pre-tax wages. The whole taxation is theft, is a conceptual mess devoid of morality or historical knowledge.

That's called being a citizen. The same way children are children and not slaves, even when they are "slaves to the whims" of their parents. Especially the first few years. It's really quite pathetic you're equivocating paying taxes to being a slave when we all know what a slave really looks like. You aren't it. You're just a pathetic selfish whiner.

A Jewish homeland. That's all it is. If Israel is to be a democracy and a Jewish one it must maintain a certain demographic composition. Israel cannot "drop" Zionism because zionism is what affirms its existence -- Jewish self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos

We know. I know. And you don't know that this is simply unacceptable in a modern world with respect for human rights because it's inherently discriminatory especially when such land is established through occupation and theft. Now if they had simply been contend with the 1948 or even the 1967 borders, there might've been something to salvage as peace and have a majority Jewish Israel. Instead occupation and illegal settlements made this impossible. Which is entirely Israel's own fault.

I don't condone violence against Jews, except as part of the Israeli occupation, as you know. But no, my sensitivity does not extend to the illegal actions and war crimes of Israel. So you can keep getting back to all the horrible attacks on Jews but I'm not committing them so don't have anything to do with it and don't need to apologise or make any statement about it because it's irrelevant with respect to Israel. You simply love to equate and smudge the differences between Jews, Israeli Jews, Zionists and Israel as a country. I only have an an issue with the last two, as I've repeated ad nauseum.

You can stuff your anti-semitism where the sun don't shine. A new generation grew up with a world that was moving towards stability and respect for human rights. In that world a Zionist Israel has no place because it implies discrimination. If Israel drops Zionism and respects the rights of Palestinians, there's simply no issue. This is not "everybody" else's fault, it's fucking racists and Jew supremacy of its current leadership that you keep pretending is perfectly fine. It's exactly the same idiotic racism as the far right shows in the EU except replace "Caucasian" with "Jew". That people take issue with it, is not anti-semitism, it's simply the right thing to do.

I'm happy when I pay attention and make the effort to be happy. Most of the time that means striving to be a better man. For instance, it means not being snappy when I'm tired and then I get all the warmth and attention from the kids to last me a life time.

The report added that "the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up-to-date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large. Thus, the FRC strongly requests all parties to enable humanitarian access in general, and specifically to provide a window of opportunity to conduct field surveys in Northern Gaza to have more solid evidence of the food consumption, nutrition, and mortality situation."

None of the laws you've cited indicate that Israel discriminates de jure between Jews and non-Jews. — BitconnectCarlos

Then you don't understand what discrimination is and you have much bigger problems. These laws would be struck down in the EU.

But if e.g. 90% of the people are in favor of anti-blasphemy laws would you say that it's "democratic" to nullify their will? Or do you just know their true will? — BitconnectCarlos

Then you no longer have democracy. You cannot have democracy without people being informed and you cannot inform people if you're not allowed to speak. Especially if what we're talking about are unprovable theories about what the world ought to be like.

Edit: it's also extremely worrisome this is your go-to example. Makes you appear as if you grew up in the dark ages.

BTW Greece does favor those with Greek ancestry for citizenship. — BitconnectCarlos

And subsequently doesn't discriminate between it's citizens unlike Israel.

You don't seem to take notice of the inherent contradictions within this idea. What if the majority wants e.g. blaspheming Muhammad to carry a penalty? — BitconnectCarlos

Freedom of speech trumps dumb fairy tales.

Is a state to promote a certain way of life at all? Or no -- should it stay completely neutral? If a state has a religious character that may be due to democracy; the people may have wanted it. I don't see democracy and a state promoting a certain way of life/ancestral traditions as inherently anti-democratic.

If Israel were to fall it would just become a Muslim state. To impose secularism on a religious population seems undemocratic. — BitconnectCarlos

There's too much to fully unpack for me here considering my own time. Quite frankly I'm flabbergasted at the lack of knowledge what makes a democracy a democracy. It's not just majority rule; it's also respect of fundamental civil rights and the rule of law. I get that a religious person would love for the world to adjust to their version of fairy tales but it won't. The safest political arrangement for any religious person has proven to be a pluralistic, secular democracy. In fact, empirical evidence seems to point to religious diversity making democracies better and the closer a religious is fused to a State the less free it becomes.

And no, there's nothing wrong with a state religion, as long as it doesn't discriminate between its own citizens based on religion. And there are plenty of countries that manage this just fine; among them England, Denmark and Greece.

Love is a queer thing — Moliere

Only if you're gay...

Can be generalized some while remaining relevant: — jorndoe

Sure.

Albanese is apparently a controversial figure. According to UN Watch ... — jorndoe

Not sure how this relates to what I said. Reading the UN Watch she's used tactics to get what she wanted. I think they were stupid because intended to manipulate instead of convince.