I see no evidence that Senators are blocking it “because it would look critical of Trump”, nor that “the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions”.

↪NOS4A2
Do you see no evidence that Senators often avoid criticizing Trump in general, or just in this particular case? — Relativist

I see no evidence that Senators are blocking it “because it would look critical of Trump”, nor that “the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions”. — NOS4A2

It sounds like you accept the fact that Republican Senators sometimes avoid saying things that are critical of Trump, you just don't see any evidence of it in this case.

No evidence? Consider the sort of information available to us for making any of our political judgment: past behavior is a large part of it. Consider some hypothetical bill that will limit access to abortions. We have no evidence of how Ted Cruz will vote for any specific bill, but his past record gives us a reasonable basis for believing he will support the bill.

Republican Senators have frequently refrained from criticizing Trump, and Trump has given them good reason to do so: there's a good chance Trump will attack them (look at Mitt Romney). True, we have no evidence that this is a factor here, but it's as reasonable to assume this as it is to consider past voting records.

Regarding the "net result" - OF COURSE it's the net result, because it's the status quo.

Right, “patterns” as you keep saying. There is also a continuous pattern of a particularly insidious form of appealing to motives, especially when it comes to Trump.

For me, if the motive cannot be proven to exist, or that this unproven motive played any factor in any action, it becomes really hard to believe. This is because Anti-Trumpists in particular have fallen afoul of the fundamental attribution error time and time again. The idea that Trump is fuelled by some defect in his personality or inner state while neglecting to consider more situational factors leads them astray every time, including in the impeachment charade. That’s why I am suspicious of these claims because rarely are they used to discern truth more than they are used to attack the target.

For me, if the motive cannot be proven to exist, or that this unproven motive played any factor in any action, it becomes really hard to believe. — NOS4A2

Prove? You set the bar impossibly high, and you aren't consistent with where you set it.

This is of course, a common affliction regardless of one's ideology. Sure, some Trump bashers make premature judgments, just like Trump minions did when shouting "lock her up". I try to avoid it. It's part of trying to be objective. Another part is to try and apply consistent principles. You should try to do these things, particularly if you're engaging in discussions with people with different political views.

Dumpertrumper,

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

I believe President Trump and the Attorney General William Barr fucked children with their buddy, Jeffrey Epstein.

I am fucking heated.

Prove? You set the bar impossibly high, and you aren't consistent with where you set it.

This is of course, a common affliction regardless of one's ideology. Sure, some Trump bashers make premature judgments, just like Trump minions did when shouting "lock her up". I try to avoid it. It's part of trying to be objective. Another part is to try and apply consistent principles. You should try to do these things, particularly if you're engaging in discussions with people with different political views.

Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective.

Dumpertrumper,

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

That’s a loaded question, Shillery.

‘If you’re a star, you can grab ‘em by the pussy. But if you’re a President, you can grab ‘em by the Justice Department.’

NOS4A2,

Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective.

NOS4A2 is just trolling. He/she waits for posters to comment on the issues and then hits back with spin from the Republican propaganda playbook. There is no engagement on issues outside of this propaganda bubble in which the two sides are portrayed as locking horns. When outsiders point these things out, there is no response.

The whole playbook is based on Machiavellian divide and rule principles. The office of the president is treated with contempt, in plain sight.

Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective. — NOS4A2

You do realize this is a philosophy forum, don't you? I take epistemology pretty seriously. I admit I can't prove all my political beliefs; no one can. You are naive if you think you can prove your political beliefs, or most of your other beliefs. Inability to prove a belief doesn't imply it's invented. Rather, we ought to strive for justification for our beliefs, not proof. Sometimes, the justification is relatively weak - that's a consequence of the sort of information we have available to us. With politics, we have a choice of working with such weakly justified beliefs or abstaining from participation.

Consider the proposition:
S: some Republican Senators are blocking passage of the SHIELD act because they wish to avoid appearing to Trump as being critical of his behavior.

Anyone who thinks such a bill is important can and perhaps should form an opinion about why it's been blocked. This implies judging whether or not S is true or false. Proof is not available, all we can do is form an opinion (which is a belief) based on what seems the best explanation for it, while remaining open to revising that opinion as additional information becomes available. You don't believe proposition S is true. That could me you believe it false, or it could just mean that it's not sufficiently significant to require you to form an opinion. But I wonder if you might just be unjustifiably believing your favorite politicians actions are virtuous unless and until it is proven to you that they are not. That's certainly what it sounds like.

Punshhh

NOS4A2 is just trolling. He/she waits for posters to comment on the issues and then hits back with spin from the Republican propaganda playbook. There is no engagement on issues outside of this propaganda bubble in which the two sides are portrayed as locking horns. When outsiders point these things out, there is no response.

The whole playbook is based on Machiavellian divide and rule principles. The office of the president is treated with contempt, in plain sight.

The only standards Punshhh has are double standards. He sees opposing opinions as so foreign that he simply refuses to believe people will disagree with him He reserves this species of criticism for those who don’t read the Guardian, but will refuse to abide by his own standards and says nothing about those who serve to confirm his biases.

I’m not talking about “political beliefs”. I’m talking about appeals to motives and your fundamental attribution error. It’s bad faith and it’s unjust. They explicitly stated why they blocked the bills. I’m not saying you have to believe them and I take no issue with speculating. But if you’re not going to consider their arguments and instead invent imaginary motives in their stead, while using those imaginary motives to accuse them of invented crimes, you are being unfair. That’s all I’m saying.

I believe President Trump and the Attorney General William Barr fucked children with their buddy, Jeffrey Epstein. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh certainly. If we take his ogling of underage girls in his pageants into account, as well as his general mysogyny and "grab them by the pussy" then that's pretty obvious.

“ Epstein was once reportedly a regular at the resort, although he was never a member. Trump later banned Epstein from the property, allegedly due to a sexual assault on a girl there, according to previously disclosed court records.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/epstein-mar-a-lago-trump-1456221

“Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey. You can’t do that at my resorts. That’s why we all pay to have our sex parties with children at your place... you know, so we can keep it on the down low.” -Trump

What about those that were actually accused by the victims, for instance Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, a Maine Democrat, or Bill Richardson, a former Democrat governor of New Mexico?

If that’s true, then they’re children fuckers, too. The child fucking is bipartisan.

What about those that were actually accused by the victims, for instance Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, a Maine Democrat, or Bill Richardson, a former Democrat governor of New Mexico? — NOS4A2

They should be prosecuted along with Trump, an admitted “pussy” grabber.

They should be prosecuted along with Trump, an admitted “pussy” grabber.

He admitted no such thing.

He admitted no such thing. — NOS4A2

I guess it was a “deepfake”.

I guess it was a “deepfake”.

No, the audio is clear as day. Saying you can do anything does not mean that I have done it. Simple English.

No, the audio is clear as day. Saying you can do anything does not mean that I have done it. Simple English. — NOS4A2

If I were above the law like Trump thinks he is, I would shoot him on Fifth Avenue.

Man, I’m so proud to be an American under Mein Fuhrer Trump.

If I were above the law like Trump thinks he is, I would shoot him on Fifth Avenue.

Man, I’m so proud to be an American under Mein Fuhrer Trump.

I’m not surprised. It seems like your one fantasy away from doing something foolish,

I’m not surprised. It seems like your one fantasy away from doing something foolish, — NOS4A2

I’m a very stable genius.

He sees opposing opinions as so foreign that he simply refuses to believe people will disagree with him

So I should believe you. As an outsider, I can see where the populism has been employed.

but will refuse to abide by his own standards and says nothing about those who serve to confirm his biases.

You didn't answer my question about the integrity of the office of the President?

I’m a very stable genius.

There's no such animal as a stable genius. A genius is the epitome of instability. Trump is either speaking alternative facts, or highly unstable. Although one can probably speak alternative facts while being highly unstable.

P.s. I like deepfake, I'll add that to my vocabulary.

There's no such animal as a stable genius. A genius is the epitome of instability. Trump is either speaking alternative facts, or highly unstable. Although one can probably speak alternative facts while being highly unstable.

P.s. I like deepfake, I'll add that to my vocabulary. — Punshhh

I’m probably crazier than Trump; but unlike him I did well in school, and I’m capable of learning new things.

Yeah, deepfakes are going to make it difficult to know the difference between truth and fiction.

Dumpertrumper,

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?