tadmjones
-
Posts
2029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
Given the magnitude of the case , why is abuse of power not in the indictment?
The idea that the freest, fairest and most transparent election in history coincided with the most altered election in history in terms of process and procedures is the main thrust of indictment.
Trump’s ‘false claims’ and the ‘big lie’ was the vehicle used to perpetuate fraud and enter conspiracies in order to obstruct ‘essential federal procedures’. If Trump didn’t know the claims were false how would that color his actions and the evaluation of those actions in legal terms.
The tens of millions of people think Trump attempted to kill ‘democracy’ and somehow used force to capture the Republic , he crossed the Rubicon via the Ellipse. They can not conceive of an idea that could be characterized as Trump using personal and political persuasion/power to implement procedures and legal maneuvers up to but not beyond constitutionally ‘allowed’ means.
I don’t think the election was ‘kosher enough’ to bring this indictment against even commies.
I hope it opens the possibility of discovery to a level that can bring some of what Trump ‘claims’ as evidence for the basis of his estimation, as far as I know none of his claims were examined in open court with witnesses under oath.
-
Lol ,how many shots did you get ?!
-
If Trump hadn’t announced he was seeking another term this indictment would most likely not have been brought , proof of which is the fact that all the allegations concerns conduct that occurred prior to Jan 21 2020 . The “crimes” were committed and all the evidence existed for years and immediately after the election, other than disqualifying him from office can be offered for the reason to pursue this indictment now? It is a political prosecution as are the various other indictments handed down or pending. It is laughable to defend these actions as a principled effort by the DOJ to protection the sanctity of the Republic.
They have already perpetrated three frauds (the Russian collusion hoax and subsequent special investigations) and possibly if not probably covered up enough election “irregularities” to constitute rigging/stealing the election post hoc.
Not to mention not taking any action other than covering up for a provably corrupt Biden.
The ‘world’ was shut down for years to remove their populist demagogue thorn from their side.
It’s Chiquita s all the way down.
-
2 hours ago, InfraBeat said:
So you linked to an article that doesn't reduce the term that way. There's no point made in getting people to click to and read an article that doesn't even support you, other than as a gratuitous flourish.
Did you know the O Henry thing ? I think I remember Rand spoke favorably about his Gift of the Magi , do you like O Henry?
-
27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
The article on "banana republic" is about corruption of the political and economic system of a country into a device for extracting wealth from the general population. Where does it mention anything relevant to the Trump case?
It has a different generally held connotation in ‘modern’ political rhetoric as a term to describe a corrupt government that is just a figurehead for some oligarchic regime.
The relevance is to the character of the actions of the DoJ, and it was interesting to note the O Henry connection.
-
3 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
Did you read this before posting?
Yes , why?
-
Stephen
Unlike an indictment the 'evidence' will be challenged. I suspect rules of discovery will allow for the defense to try and substantiate claims of malfeasance in several of the states mentioned. "False" as a legal term is going to get a lot of attention , I'd figger.
Shouldn't the 147 members of congress that stated, publicly, they would follow established procedures attendant to challenging slates of electors be listed as co-conspirators in advancing 'false' claims ?
-
-
If a tree falls..
The DoJ is dropping the charge of conspiracy to commit illegal campaign contributions against SBF( FTX) 'cuz apparently the Bahamanian govt doesn't much care about US election integrity, really why should they and/or the relative freedom of business in the Bahamas may be tinged by a 'concern', but whatever right?
Since the charge wasn't included in the extradition agreement , no illegal campaign donations occurred? Let us even concede that a charge isn't evidence, of course, but we should expect that in light of attaining the freest and fairest and transparentest elections since 2012 that the mere allegation will be investigated to the hilt right?
Just because a technicality allows the dropping of the charge against SBF doesn't mean the 'alleged' receivers of campaign donations are now beyond scrutiny , does it ? A conspiracy involves at least two participants, even if it were 'legal' to accept a donation given illegally cuz ignorance, the charge reads conspiracy to donate illegally meaning at least two parties knew of the illegality, allegedly.
Keep your ear to the ground
-
For me, one of the most depressing aspects of the 'scamdemic' was the relative lack of visible governmental force applied to accomplish compliance.
For a long time I expected to see local and state police and National guard personnel posted at major transportation routes, similar to the way airports looked immediately after 9/11. I traveled in October of that year and was affected by the presence of armed military personnel , affected in that it was admittedly reassuring but there is also a visceral effect of their presence , one I was/am not accustomed to by virtue of having been born in the US, thank god.
My wife stopped working at her business for three months partly to care for our daughter as her care services were closed , but mostly from fear that members of the public would notice the activity and 'report it'. In a few months she resumed her business though 'covertly'( shuttered windows and clandestine parking schemes,lol) I was deemed 'essential ' and continued to work full time and for the first few weeks fully expected to see law enforcement presence , especially at the state border I cross, but that never materialized.
Recently I heard a discussion on the difference between force and power as it applies to governance and control. There is an inverse relationship among regimes between the use of force and the power they command. Power means control is established and acknowledged by the citizenry, whereas the actual use of force indicates the regime is being threatened , their control/power is or has been diminished in some capacity and in order to regain control the imminent threat of violence is the only tool left to their disposal.
Looking back now I see that the lack of a visible show of force means I live in a pretty powerful regime.
I know some will say that what I saw was the reaction of a rational citizenry responding to a commensurate actual threat, but the truth is it wasn't.
-
Covid was not as deadly as reported , it was dangerous to the elderly and those with compromised health, not the 'general' or even close to the majority of the population.
The mitigation efforts of masking and distancing were known by the implementers of the policies to be ineffective.
The lockdowns and school closures were morally and constitutionally abusive and solely facilitated by spreading the falsehood of the 'deadly contagion'.
HCQ and Ivermectin along with vitamin D and zinc supplementation in non toxic doses showed efficacy especially when used as a prophylactic. Suppressing the efficacy of safe and available treatments and protections enabled the issuance of the EUA allowing the use and distribution of an experimental medical treatment. Facilitated by the public's belief of the presence of a 'deadly contagion'.
Hospital beds have been declining as a percentage of the population for decades, added to the fact that most medical facilities curtailed staffing , services and wards that resulted in ' the crush'.
Inaccurate and faulty testing and testing regimes were deployed to promote the idea that daily life was dangerous.
The recommended( read mandated) standard of care coupled with patient isolation practices were at best medically inappropriate and at worst lethal. All facilitated by the rationalization of a 'deadly contagion'.
Historic medical and scientific practices and methodologies were discarded or 'officially ' changed( mass inoculation in the face of a novel infection, three months of safety and effectiveness testing equals five real world years)
Unconstitutional changes to balloting laws across the country were facilitated by the acceptance of the public of being in the midst of a 'deadly contagion'.
Aside from the actual infection , the reaction and the public's acquiescence to the state's response were facilitated by the propaganda fomented by 'the media' along with active suppression of any dissent to the 'narrative'. Do you believe the falsehoods spread were the continued result of separate organizations all making the same mistakes as to the accuracy of their 'reporting'?
Obama , the FBI and DOJ were briefed on the fact that the DNC/Hillary Clinton were going to perpetuate a fraudulent story about Russian/Trump collusion , allowed it to happen and facilitated its happening. The Mueller report was a joke as was Mueller 2.0 ( the Durham Report) , it's is a laughable idea that the people that perpetuated the hoax would 'investigate' and report out their own complicity.
Hunter Biden's laptop is and was always 'real' and no one thought otherwise, as is Joe Biden's corruption documented on the laptop.
All cause excess death has been running about 10% higher than the five year average for about two years now, numbers that will soon if not already rival the numbers from the deadly delta wave, and cardiac and circulatory problems are on the rise (especially among a younger cohort but no media is talking about it, somehow it seems all of 'the media' is just unaware of it , along with the CDC and the WHO.
I suggest you stop 'listening' to the thoroughly discredited 'media' outlets you seem to follow.
- Jon Letendre and necrovore
- 2
-
As an example of algorithmic ‘serendipity’ , YouTube presented this video to me on Whitehead and though not touching on any politicization of science and obviously nothing on O’ist definitions, the lecture speaks to the connection of science to metaphysics and the role philosophy should play in distinguishing a hierarchy with a view toward how western science has made progress to rational understanding but underscores ,I think, a divide or in-congruency that could lead to “scientism”.
Though I do not know the O’ist stance toward Whitehead ‘officially’ , listening to the lecture is a good exercise in detecting similarities and differences in theories and explanations eg the mechanisms of concept formation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2vDesht8o
-
2 hours ago, Reidy said:
I see no inconsistency in the statement tadmjones quotes. It names two species of the genus freedom (among several others including religious freedom, medical freedom and the freedom to cross borders). "I bought some fruit: grapes, apricots and pears" is similarly not a contradiction, although "a grape is an apricot" is.
My critique on the rhetoric was triggered by the unnecessarily 'flowery/poetic" language 'cannot long..' implying a state existing in which separate species of freedom could be compromised and yet Liberty would still exist as an interrupted state, even temporarily. As if Liberty could withstand 990 cuts.
"Give me most species of freedom or give.."
-
36 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:
1. Liberty. Among Americans’ most fundamental rights is the right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force: a right that, in turn, derives from the inseparability of free will from what it means to be human. Liberty is indivisible, and political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom.
Doesn't this statement itself contain or imply a contradiction? In that liberty is divisible into, at least two aspects, political freedom and economic freedom?
To me it reads as a statement that identifies a quality "liberty" but that quality has expressions in human action that differ, I'd almost rather prefer a G_d-given right to be free of compulsory taxation
-
-
I made the claim based on your choice of egregious and flagrant and my apprehension of their use in this specific instance. You've said yourself that it is both consistent to infer motivation from those , while at the time consistent to not infer motivation, I suppose I was just being consistent.
-
On 7/19/2023 at 1:46 AM, InfraBeat said:
You are. The error Boydstun mentioned is fundamental, egregious and flagrant. Only someone who is not paying attention to what Rand actually wrote and said would publish such a fundamental, egregious and flagrant misrepresentation.
"Only someone who is not paying attention to what Rand actually wrote and said would publish such a fundamental misrepresentation" conveys the author's error , why did you qualify the misrepresentation if not to antagonize a good faith and reasoned approach at critique of the piece?
-
So you were just being hyperbolic, noted.
-
The first definition I found for flagrant says “conspicuously bad, offensive or reprehensible “
That’s pretty consistent with the way I “hear it “ and use it which as far as I can see is also consistent with meaning to imply intent.
-
To be fair , a fundamental error could likely occur from someone not paying requisite attention to a subject , but egregious and flagrant imply motivation to antagonize. It reads more like a positive though not full throated endorsement, a “puff” piece highlighting someone well known for their admiration of the Founders.
This author has penned several articles that feature “Meet the American who..” themes.
-
On 7/13/2023 at 4:44 PM, DavidOdden said:
When this goes up the food chain, the primary tension will probably be a First Amendment battle between Biden’s right to be a leftist extremist vs. other people’s rights to disseminate false statements. The core issue will be what constitutes coercion. Common sense tells you that if a person tells you “I really could use the money in your wallet. Do you want to continue living?”, your life has just been threatened, but nowhere did the person say “Give me your money or I will kill you” – the threat is implied (you can read between the lines and infer a negative consequence for non-compliance). Common sense is often suspended in court judgments. Section IIIB(1)(a)(i) lays out the legal framework for concluding that the government did coerce, the unrelenting pressure to comply being a significant factor supporting the conclusion that the government was not just “expressing an opinion”.
In principle, the government might attempt to justify violation of the First Amendment because it is “necessary” in aid of the government’s (stipulated) compelling interest is preserving public health – a rotten doctrine to be sure, but it is an accepted legal fact. The scientists’ opinions would largely be irrelevant to this argument, except in testifying to something that they would be on very shaky grounds about – that viewpoint suppression is necessary to prevent an apocalypse.
My original comment was misplaced in that I was carrying over a sentiment from another thread as it applied to "The Science" , the pronouncements of state sanctioned scientists is an ancillary issue to the censorship by the state or state actors, coerced or not.
-
If you read the court document one can see the 'scientists' functioning as providing the cover/gravitas for the policy makers and the socials explicitly accepting the government's "the science" for cover/justification.
"Science" has its utility.
-
Scientists aren’t in a position to make government policy, their role is explaining why government policies are correct. Not all scientists of course, at last count 3% are out of ‘concensus’.
Is wind energy even economically viable ‘at scale’? I think the infrastructure problems that drive up costs have a lot to do with power management and distribution over ‘a whole’ grid that needs to handle production and load variances associated with wind and solar generation.
-
Not a very principled defense of the 'west' , his pragmatism reflects some aspects of 'realpolitik'. I agree with his assessment that the progressives have destroyed what is called education in the US , though for him, I infer his 'conservative(s)' would have produced a similar result as Putin's evil is manifest in his 'conservatism'.
Europe is developed enough and wealthy enough to defend 'itself' from Russia ( whether or not Russia actually poses a threat to 'Europe' isn't considered , except in some vague Russian exceptionalism) , that NATO need not exist, presumably from an American standpoint, but.. it's here so no need to see it come to an end because treaties, conscription is anti-freedom but everyone does it so , suspension of elections bad but everyone does it, all governments are made up of corrupt individuals so we make do with least corrupt and call them the good..
Putin and Russia are the incarnations of principled evil and that is the genesis of all their actions and this is basically the basis to continue to prolong the suffering and destruction , perhaps he thinks unprincipled resistors are the antidote to principled evil. Or perhaps he should check his premises.
Science of Philosophy vs. Science Science?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted · Edited by tadmjones
Added text
More inter webs serendipity, I’m currently listening to an audiobook version of Whitehead’s Process and Reality. Just experienced a section on a critique of Descartes, Hume , Locke and Kant and theories of perception and resultant conceptualization theory.
This nascent exploration into his thought has caused ( or in Whiteheadian vernacular the actual occasion of my understanding has satisfied the apprehension of the thought or contextually notion) that Existence exists is more satisfyingly felt as the universe is the state of being.
This exploration is putting a lot more meat and flesh on the bones on my previous conception of existence as and metaphysics.