RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT

[Firefly]

whoa! You went all in with your doomsday forecast!

What grounds do you think they can use to kill the investigation? Firing RR won't make that happen. Firing Sessions has jack shyt to do with it(he recused) and even firing Mueller won't stop shyt. It's too late to fire folks to stop the investigation. Unless you know something I don't. In which case I'm all ears.

I'm with you! I want to see them go down like The Zeppelin but realize this, they ain't taking ANY time OFF.

Orrin Hatch, the Supreme Court, and Trump's Pardons - The Atlantic

"The Utah lawmaker Orrin Hatch, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed a 44-page amicus brief earlier this month in Gamble v. United States, a case that will consider whether the dual-sovereignty doctrine should be put to rest. The 150-year-old exception to the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy clause allows state and federal courts to prosecute the same person for the same criminal offense. According to the brief he filed on September 11, Hatch believes the doctrine should be overturned. “The extensive federalization of criminal law has rendered ineffective the federalist underpinnings of the dual sovereignty doctrine,” his brief reads. “And its persistence impairs full realization of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s liberty protections.”"


If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed, as Hatch wants, then Trump’s pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action.


If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, “the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally—but with some existing limits—can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon,” explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. “If Hatch gets his way, however, a federal pardon would essentially block a subsequent state-level prosecution.”


They're all working together. Even Flake, Collins etc..................
These folks stop this and they know their base. They and their families will be facing death threats the rest of their lives.

Now could they be brave in the 11th hour? Sure, just looking at it 360. I don't put ANY faith or trust in these folks. Maybe some of you guys do But I really can't give them that much faith

Thats why I said " a miracle"

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I dunno how many philosophy brehs we have on here, but I consider myself a post-modernist (i.e., everything is relative). This is a popular belief system in the liberal arts. It says there is no truth, just your interpretation of an event, based upon some previous conditioning. It made a ton of sense to me, existentially. However, one pitfall of the belief system is, well, Trump. He’s “postmodern” as fukk, in regard to his use of “alternative” facts and different viewpoints. This makes me think, perhaps that belief system is too dangerous. If a logical extension of this philosophy is something like the Trump admin, perhaps academics and philosophers should re-examine the benefit of such a worldview.

I wish I was in school again to discuss this with philosophy scholars and students. shyt is kinda mind-boggling to me

Any of you ever thing about this? If so, I’d love to get your opinions

Remember when Rumsfeld said reality doesn't matter, we make our own reality?

 

[Ciggavelli]

Remember when Rumsfeld said reality doesn't matter, we make our own reality?

I don’t remember that, but he’s basically talking about the social constructivism paradigm. I guess I never really noticed politicians using that worldview before Trump and his “alternative” facts. I gotta do some more digging. I didn’t even realize people outside of academics utilized the theory for their benefit. Lemme come around and find out this theoretical perspective is actually pragmatic

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[nyknick]

great food for thought.
i'll drop a response to this tomorrow.
i'm not a "philosophy head" but i have some thoughts on the matter.

Spoiler: thoughts will include one or multiple glowsticks

 

[88m3]

@∆y = f(∆x) what/where was that odd venue?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[88m3]

Remember when Rumsfeld said reality doesn't matter, we make our own reality?

So you disagree?

 

[Black Panther]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I dunno how many philosophy brehs we have on here, but I consider myself a post-modernist (i.e., everything is relative). This is a popular belief system in the liberal arts. It says there is no truth, just your interpretation of an event, based upon some previous conditioning. It made a ton of sense to me, existentially. However, one pitfall of the belief system is, well, Trump. He’s “postmodern” as fukk, in regard to his use of “alternative” facts and different viewpoints. This makes me think, perhaps that belief system is too dangerous. If a logical extension of this philosophy is something like the Trump admin, perhaps academics and philosophers should re-examine the benefit of such a worldview.

I wish I was in school again to discuss this with philosophy scholars and students. shyt is kinda mind-boggling to me

Any of you ever thing about this? If so, I’d love to get your opinions

I'll just say what I've said for the last two years:

The conservative politics and punditry of today are the results of evangelicals discovering postmodernism.

Being a former evangelical church-goer gives me a certain perspective on conservatism. Post-modernism is ruthlessly attacked as demonic ideas from secular humanists seeking to remove "The Truth" (of God and the Bible) from it's place of prominence.

However, conservatives now understand that making truth relative is useful when trying to affect public policy. It allows one to simply reduce empirical facts to matters of opinion, dismissing the ones they don't like.

This is especially true if it's a situation where there's no clear answer to a problem. They like Trump because of how boldly and carelessly he does so.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Need more foot on neck

 

[Pressure]

The truth as relative only holds true as long as people still value truth telling and assume that bad actors like good actors are also attempting to be truthful as often as possible.

Once the veneer is gone the value of the lie becomes nearly worthless - - thus providing more power to those who can exhibit easily verifiable truths.

None of this is new and as power wanes the cycle will reset itself as always.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

postmodernism scholars mad because we've been post-postmodern for decades but the general public is just now catching up to misconceptions about postmodernism

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

The truth as relative only holds true as long as people still value truth telling and assume that bad actors like good actors are also attempting to be truthful as often as possible.

Once the veneer is gone the value of the lie becomes nearly worthless - - thus providing more power to those who can exhibit easily verifiable truths.

None of this is new and as power wanes the cycle will reset itself as always.

the lies serve other purposes - many times they're told w/o any expectation that anyone will believe them

1. exhaust the opposition
2. "normalize" dishonesty
3. as a means to distract attention

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

No show job getting paid with tax payer money

 

[Pressure]

the lies serve other purposes - many times they're told w/o any expectation that anyone will believe them

1. exhaust the opposition
2. "normalize" dishonesty
3. as a means to distract attention

Right, but 1,2, and 3 only work if the majority of people value honesty and believe people attempt to be honest.

1. People only fight obvious lies because people believe them, not because people merely say or echo them.

2. Dishonesty can never be normalized because it requires honesty to be an effective tool.

3. I think this is the most effective tool in a consequential society. But one thing we learned from Kant is lying isn't universalizable.