My, my.

Creative writing skills on show here today.

I'm getting first hand information as to what is meant by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" on this thread.

Keep things up. Hollywood is calling.

I've been following the house debates for some time and therefore watched the arguments consisting of frustrations some are having with regard to getting documents they have legally requested and are legally entitled to see.

A little background, this goes back to January:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/01/03/jim-jordan-has-these-question-for-the-fbi-n2429649

"Last week the Justice Department and FBI blew threw a deadline to turn over documents to the House Intelligence Committee about the infamous Russian dossier. That dossier was compiled by Fusion GPS and paid for by the Clinton campaign. Officials have until the end of today to comply with subpoena requests from Chairman Devin Nunes, who has threatened them with contempt.

But as the stonewalling continues, the more questions arise about the dossier: its origination, how it was used, who else pitched in to pay for it, etc.

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has a few things he wants answered:

All of these questions remain unanswered as the Special Counsel investigation continues, along with investigations on Capitol Hill."

And this to December 2017:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/29/doj-blows-past-deadline-to-turn-over-document-to-congress-on-dossier-n2427812

So, you supported his impeachment on the basis of nothing but some vague wish for transparency. OK, so presumably you support impeaching Trump for the same reason. Let's do it. — Baden

I "support" the accusation that he keeps failing to turn over requested documents.

Whatever process gets him to stop failing is sufficient.

You are really slow. There will be no process because there is no basis for a process — Baden

A stage of "the process" has begun, has it not? Introduction of the resolution?

Evidence. Go ahead. We're waiting — Baden

Now, I didn't say he wasn't carrying out his duties. I merely paraphrased as to why the impeachment.

I don't know what the evidence is.

Yawn. Cite the evidence he's not carrying out his duties. And statements by lying politicians greasing their own wheels don't count. Go ahead. — Baden

It's not for me. It's for the impeachment process. It will falter or it will not, based on evidence presented to that particular forum and how it may be defended.

Certainly much butt-hurtness going on here though.

You don't have to legally defend yourself against every nonsense unsubstantiated claim — Baden

Unless..........it's substantiation becomes clear.

So the stooges that support and defend him need to understand that their own actions, while possibly defensible in ordinary circumstances, are in the case of Trump potentially treasonous in effect, perhaps in intent! — tim wood

It's construct gulag time again. Stalin is proud.

The more sensible wing of the Republican party knows you can't impeach someone just because you consider them a political enemy. — Baden

It is for not carrying out his duties. The duties American citizens pay him to do. He is an employee.

Yeah he's a blatant white nationalist — Maw

You've got quite a color obsession going on there.

No I'm not looking for an argument for my non-existence. (I'd have to exist to be doing that.) I'm having a conversation with some Buddhists about process philosophy, and this question came up. — rachMiel

There is no point in examining a question as to whether you exist or not without first defining what you mean by “you” and what you mean by “existence”.

What are you?

What is existence?

That is Rosenstien’s opportunity, to challenge what he has been accused of. It appears, these days, to have become privilege that you get such an opportunity. So this merely demonstrates Rosenstein is still of the privilege class.

If he has no reasonable defence, so be it.

It seems the only way to get some semblance of transparency from these employees of American citizens.

To impeach is to charge. Rosenstein, therefore, can challenge the accusation with whatever he has.

If I stress myself out over small things; software issue, this can cause changes in the body that can impact health. It can cause the habitual release of certain neurotransmitter combo's and adrenaline that can start to impact the brain hardware. Or a brain tumor can cause pressures in the brain that start to impact how our software outputs. — wellwisher

If hardware cannot accept and operate software then it is dead.

Is it not?

Is a severed human arm still an arm or is it a piece of human meat?

Presumably you can define what a pc is. Presumably you can define what a chair is you use to sit on while at the pc. However, what is the “I” or the “you” is that apparently sits at the pc?

Is this “I” or “you” that is sitting at the pc one object of the three listed in this sentence: “I” am sitting on a “chair” at my “pc”?

Here in Moscow it is fine.

They are distinct in that minds are a type of brain state, i.e. minds are conscious states (as opposed to non-conscious brain states). There is a ton of evidence to demonstrate this. — numberjohnny5

A non conscious brain state? You mean a dead mind or brain?

. There are actual organs that we call "minds/brains"--they're not just ideas, unless you're an idealist — numberjohnny5

Yes. One phenomena. Brain and mind, not brain and then, over there, a mind.

Just as a living body is essentially a body-mind.

> “Every thing (or all things) that is not mental is "beyond the mental.”<
>“mental phenomena is electro-chemical, and experience is mental phenomena<

Can you point out the contradiction? — numberjohnny5

A thing (as in “every thing”) does not exist unless it arises within the mental.

This point is also made with your statement, >The "something else" is the stuff that the mental experiences<

The “something else” (or the “every thing”) does not exist unless it arises in the mental.

I think the debate on whether homosexuality impedes or is culled by evolution is anthropomorphism.

Evolution will not falter without humans. In fact it has more chance of faltering with humans around.

Mind and brain, however, is an idea. A mental construct.

They cannot be distinct from each other in any scientific way.

> “Every thing (or all things) that is not mental is "beyond the mental.”<
>“mental phenomena is electro-chemical, and experience is mental phenomena”<

Hence the contradiction above.

The term “mental” is utilised to define every phenomena along with the observer. As you put it: The “mental” that “experiences”.

As in your statement below.

>The "something else" is the stuff that the mental experiences<

Well I don’t invest in a philosophy. So many overlap, good point here and there, other points useless.

“Philosophical” is another matter. An action rather than intellectual masturbation (like, as you say, “fondleness of self”).

Because it is about what you want to maintain as your belief.

I disagree, and I think thinking about things like that leads to confusion and incoherency. Being aware of the pc is not being the pc, but maybe you're being poetic or something — numberjohnny5

I’m not suffering confusion from the understanding I have put forth.

“Being aware of the pc is not being the pc“

What is it that is being aware of the pc? A “mental” something?

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "content". Secondly, in my view, "experience" is mental only. The boundaries of experiences are within the brain (in connection with the body). We experience stuff internally and externally though. — numberjohnny5

Content = objects identified within an experience, usually named.

“Experience” is mental only? What is therefore beyond the “mental”?

“Experience”, in my view, is electrical. Some call it “chemical”.

But I do not see where a boundary lies where “mental” is on one side and something else on the other.

So what is the “something else” which apparently isn’t “mental”?

I am being honest. As I mentioned to another poster, I don't believe that my experience of sitting at my pc is an illusion, even if I can't know that with absolute certainty. But I don't need to know that with absolute certainty. I think it's reasonable to believe the experience is accurate — numberjohnny5

I say the language is accurate “I am sitting at my pc” because it is accepted as the appropriate form of sentence structure for disseminating that information.

Just because it is accurate in that way does not mean that is what actually occurred.

It leaves behind the question as to who “I” is or “you” are during the “at the pc” experience.


I therefore state that what “you” are during the “at the pc” experience is the entire experience thus it’s content.


You cannot be a content separate from every other content within the experience.

The “brain” engaged with the pc is, in effect, being also the pc. The pc is, during that experience, imbedded in the “brain” (for context, “brain” as awareness).

It is not particularly different to the sentence structure “the rising sun” while no actual event such as that is occurring.

Following Kant the transcendental ego is the noumenal determination of that, which thinks. If there is thought, which we ought to know for sure, there must be something thinking. That's crystal clear. If it rains there must be something raining. — Heiko

I will throw this out there, however.

The way I see what is "it" that rains.

Rain is part of the living process of this planet's life of which we, of course, experience. Thought is also part of this living process.

Both thought and rain arise in consciousness (consciousness being space within which all experience arises).

Rain is a result of cause and effect so nothing rains (or no thing rains).

All we can say is rain rains. It makes little sense to say water rains. Rain is rain. Water is water.

Does water river when we try to describe a river?

Why, when we see a river, do we not say a river is rivering?

Thoughts also arise within consciousness as a result, it would appear, of cause and effect.

I don't think. I experience thoughts which arise.

So I am not the thinker of thought. Thought just does it's thing just as rain just does it's thing.

When there is rain I experience it........but I didn't do anything to make it occur.

Same with a thought. A thought arises. Cause and effect means that the thought that arose will generate another thought.

A thought will sometimes also generate an act. And then an act will often generate a thought.

You said that “there must be something thinking” and stated this is “crystal clear” as backed up by the Rain analogy.

So, are you able to therefore clearly crystalize for me what it is that rains?

I don’t know the answer. I don’t claim to know the answer. You, however, appear to know the answer and that it is Chrystal clear.

I can only know what isn’t with regard to this subject.

You are an outstanding student of mediocrity.

Because even a child could see that Donald is Putin's poodle...? — Baden

It appears that children are seeing it that way.

I accept the challenge.

No cause for doubt?

Spoken like a true religionist.


Just believe, eh? Belief is everything.


Please do not ever accept to do jury service for the sake of justice.

“When the so-called "facts" are corroborated by many different sources, I tend to believe them as facts”

Perhaps do some math.

6 CORPORATIONS CONTROL 90% OF THE MEDIA IN AMERICA

https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/

Man, you got it bad, ain't you? No, Trump is best buddies with Putin, and Putin is looking to undermine the alliance against him, and foment conflict within both Europe and the US. Trump is just a puppet, and the US is run from Moscow. And for sure this operation has been many years in the making, far longer than Trump's presidency — unenlightened

I think you should consider writing children’s literature.

So the robber goes to court and says look judge, the store owner should have prevented me from robbing the store he's the real guilty party. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are being really quite silly.

I just said your premise that Trump had zero control is unsupported. So we cannot yet rule out the possibility that trump is the robber — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not up to the accused to provide evidence of what he is accused of.

Your premise, or accusation, that Trump controlled a Facebook ad operation by some particular persons of Russian origin is unsupported.

hey look, you’re entitled to believe whatever story teller is telling you.


We’ll just all have to wait and see how it shakes down.

Your premise that Trump had zero control is unsupported, so you cannot conclude that trump was not the robber. And the store owner cannot be held responsible for the theft (unless there is evidence of 'an inside job'). That responsibility is placed squarely on the thief — Metaphysician Undercover

The “store owner” has responsibility for security (just as Hillary Clinton was responsible for security of classified material with which she spectacularly failed at).

Trump as robber, insert your evidence here >……………<


So much derangement on display all over this thread.

Not really. The point is that Store owners didn't ought to be best buddies with store robbers. And if they are, folks start to talk about 'an inside job'. — unenlightened

Did I say that Russian Facebook ad creators were colluding or “buddies” with Obama-the-store-owner?

No I did not.

It’s an opinion piece.


One can string facts (particular but separate events ) together to create a story which fits a chosen narrative. It goes on all of the time.

A court is supposed to look at such things in an objective manner so if there is an indictment and it goes to a court, where ‘discovery’ can come into play (which can bring to light HOW such events could have been creatively construed), then that would be that.

However, in the meantime objectivity is not necessarily, or automatically, the business of corporate news outlets who often tie themselves to various political lobby structures.

Sure. They are pulling out the stops after the fact to fudge reality.

Here is merely one of the many reports of the time including James Comey’s own testimony.

‘The FBI requested access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and servers for other Democratic entities that were hacked during the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday, but its request was not met.

In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies’ findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were “multiple requests at different levels” for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a “highly respected private company” was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.’

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-director-comey-agency-requested-access-to-dnc-servers/