Putin is beyond a revanchist. He’s an old school communist, nearly a Bolshevik-an apparatchik- who still thinks history is trending towards”workers of the world unite.” He prefers his history Stalin style, of course, with himself as the vanguard for the revolution.

Thus, a disturbing, psychotic, visceral reaction explains his invasion. It isn’t just his wistful witness to a fading empire or anger over an encroaching NATO or paranoia of western influence that became his casus belli.

He invaded principally after Ukraine proper proclaimed a decommunization of its society. That was the straw that broke him. It is one thing to lose territory, to lose influence or to lose even power. But no true communist, those who see themselves forever as agents of social Utopia, can long endure the death of their spirit-the finality of their ideological soul.

He will not rest.

I wasn’t challenging your argument, which is little more than that a scaffold of testimonial evidence is better than limited testimonial evidence insofar as trying to establish an inductive argument. You insist on volume, variety, consistency, supporting evidence and first-hand accounts. Got it.

What I challenged you on, rather, was how your noted criteria sufficiently ground your conclusion (I.e., NDE truth,) not whether that criteria enhance an inductive argument.

To be clear, one legal standard, with which you’re likely familiar, is preponderance of the evidence (p/o/e); the standard boils down to whether it is more likely than not that x testimony is sufficient to establish y. Your argument parallels the p/o/e standard.

However, neither that legal standard nor your species of testimonial evidence obtains the truth of a conclusion. Both approaches just make the argument(s) a little more convincing.

You put great stock in these premises being true to ground your particular conclusion, which no one disputes as a measure for being logically consistent, but I don’t see how this specific NDE truth is being affirmed except by some subjective assertions, en masse.

Or are your simply stating that the (NDE) assertions per se are true and that they represent the premises? I hope not, since there are, e.g., an infinite number of Santa Claus -is-coming-at-Christmas assertions, and well...

It appears to me that you’re running into the fallacy of begging the question. Exactly what is the objective independent evidence that the premises presented are true? Please don’t give me more testimonial evidence.

As I demonstrated by my prior collusion analogy, testimonial evidence gets you to point x in a conclusion, but not to the truth of the conclusion.

I — Sam26

Re: testimonial evidence in the manifold way you described it as a valid measure of an event:

For two years and more-every day, every hour-millions of people asserted that Trump colluded with the Russians. They just knew it was political and ideological gospel;

-Reporters and journalists nationwide swore it was true, reproducing one article after another to that titillating effect;
-Social media sounded the conspiratorial alarm, writ large;
-Academics, legal types, and pundits harangued ad
nauseam about the juicy matter;
-Forums and blogs regurgitated the notion;
-Congress, presidential candidates, the FBI, the CIA and peripheral security agencies joined hands in the cri de coeur;
-Cable news outfits made the charge their raisin d’etre;

The “testimonial evidence” overwhelmingly grounded the allegation and accusation. Report after report after report assured us of the misdeed. Indeed, the “truth” of collusion could not have been less than an apodictic certainty.

Well, oops.

Also, I think you’re 1) conflating atheism and agnosticism and b) presupposing that atheism is an argument for God’s nonexistence. The latter would be limited to “hard” atheism; atheism (a-theism) per se is simply (defined as) an absence of theistic belief (theism), not an affirmative belief that God doesn’t exist.

That is, everyone is born an atheist.

Let’s say, arguendo, that religion x is a necessary condition for any god(s) or for ( big G) God’s existence. We then must grant, per that defining religious script(ure), that God is transcendent and omnipresent.

No point in being or creating a god if it’s the same as being a citizen.

Well, if God is transcendent or omnipresent according to the same religion which you submit was alone responsible for God’s origin, de novo, then exactly when did the whole transcendent quality unfold?

I’m pretty sure there’s no start or expiration date. Just saying.

Ps. I meant 1776-1787

Federalism, from this perspective and as an ideal, respects standards and customs distinct to regions and groups of people (states) and is reflected by variance within constitution and law. As an additional benefit, the avoidance of a monolithic governance structure insulates against political 'disease' analogously to genetic variation protecting against blight in trees. — JosephS

What you mention of federalism is more its residue than its design. Federalism, like separation of powers and checks and balances, is about securing the people’s sovereignty and reaffirming the consent of the governed.

The framers began-and ended-their journey of establishing our republic with the threshold concept of “We the people...” Those words and those which followed in the COTUS both underscored an effort to 1) shape our individual states into a collective body ( E pluribus unum) and 2) create a limited government.

Recall, the mission of the revolutionary moments cca. 1776-1778 was to extricate a horde of radicals from tyranny and oppression in the form of a King. Once accomplished by using guns and might, those same radicals took intellectual pains to establish liberty in perpetuity by dividing all pockets of power in their (our) seminal republic.

Federalism ( inter alia) was thus born.

“Do we see any larger waves on the horizon or is the cementing of federal power better perceived as a one-way crystallization of hierarchy -- a sedimentary, unyielding compression?”

That concern is too deep for me. My only reply is to say that my life, and the lives of those I know most, are intertwined with government more locally than nationally ( I.e., state vs. feds) to the extent there’s any serious intercourse at all. I pay taxes, I salute the military, I obey the laws.

That reassures me that we haven’t yet been devoured by The DC Leviathan and, in a more apposite sense, reassures me that federalism still retains its political soul.

There seems to be a trend away from federalism in this country. The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is perhaps the more obvious of my two examples. The 17th Amendment, to my mind, also erodes the premise of the state as a sovereign territory. Prior to learning of the history of the 17th Amendment and how Senators used to be elected, it did seem to curious to me that we had two houses, whose members were both elected directly by the People. — JosephS

The prostitution of the commerce clause ended any pretense of federalism. It’s DC’s ( congress’s) plenary instrument for making all things it’s own business.

Oh, wait....there’s those right-wing hobgoblins who sit on the bench and dare to curtail, like platonic guardians, the abuses of the commerce clause (e.g. US v. Lopez). Not to mention their haste to jurisprudentially trumpet the Tenth Amendment. “Damn states-righters” is what they must be, KKK types hiding in plain view wearing those black-as-white robes.

Or maybe they just don’t trust the federal government.

Incidentally, the incorporation of the BOR ( most of it) via the 14A was less a manifestation of federalism being eroded than it was a legal angle by defendants to challenge state prosecutions and abuses of civil rights. John Bingham, author of the 14a, envisioned his section 1 clause as a way to accomplish precisely that-granting civil rights protections to all men ( especially blacks, then still de facto slaves, despite the 13A.)

Bingham’s interest wasn’t to grant the feds more, or the states less, power; his principal concern was to erode the Black Codes and to provide equal protection to all of his fellow citizens.

If you mean by “current demographics” white people, then you’re right that they’re the majority. You’re wrong however that they all vote for Republicans. Especially not the women who make up more of the demographic than the men. With women and minorities, demographics favor Democrats. Come back when you get your facts straight. — Noah Te Stroete

Last try: the current demographics with respect to state legislatures are such that republicans control the vast majority of them. Plain fact.

Accordingly, the republicans would benefit by altering the current senate election structure (direct election) were it returned to its original process ( state election.) I’m sorry if you can’t grasp this simple concept.

The rest of your commentary is noise and not worth extra bandwidth.

Do you know what gerrymandering is and who’s the best at it? Republicans. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes. I do. What about it? Unless it’s based on racial or equal protection (5a/14a) type issues, partisan gerrymandering is a mundane political issue condoned by the constitution; congress can use its elections clause if they don’t like its results.

In any case, what’s gerrymandering have to do with republicans and the near impossibility of their changing the senate structure?

As to the balance of your post, you’re building a scaffold of non sequiturs.

Because they have to go to extreme lengths to hold onto the power they have. — Noah Te Stroete

I believe this comment is the source of confusion. My point is that the republicans would have to do very little to hold onto their senate power inasmuch as they, unlike the democrats, could offer an amendment to have the states elect the senate (ors). There’s no impossibility in the least to their doing that.

Demographics are their friends, their road to victory. They control the state legislatures by a vast margin. If you dislike the GOP, you best hope the current structure remains status quo.

I don’t understand your argument to refute my claim. I’m talking about the current state of politics in this country. — Noah Te Stroete

Your claim was that changing the senate ( structure) is nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans.

Well, allow me to simplify how current political demographics refute your claim: if changing the senate structure serves to benefit the GOP- as it surely would (due to current demographics) were it changed to its original process- then why would it be nearly impossible for republicans to change it?

It would be nearly impossible to change the structure of the Senate. This is so because it would hurt Republicans, the same reason why Republicans make it harder for people to vote. So, yes, it is NEARLY impossible. — Noah Te Stroete

First, thanks for the quote tip.

Secondly, you say changing the senate structure would be nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans. I’m sorry, but demographics nationally refute your proposition.

The original process for senate elections was via state legislatures. The GOP currently controls 30 of them; maybe 31. Around there. Those numbers will little change in short course.

Thus, there is an exceedingly valid reason for the GOP to change the current structure-i.e., to return to state elections as a more secure means of being elected.

“There is no valid justification for the existence of the Senate. “

The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63.

Personally, I think he struck gold when espousing the notion of its deliberative mode, by virtue of six year terms, as a tool to counterbalance the frenzy and passions of the hour.

“Also, an amendment to the Constitution has to be ratified by two thirds of the states, which makes it nearly impossible to change the Senate, not to mention that it would never get the needed votes in the Senate itself as the Senators from the small states would never go for it.”

Huh?
1) an amendment to be ratified requires three-fourths of the states’ approval; it’s two-thirds in ( of) Congress.
2) “impossible” seems an odd adjective since the current method of direct election was, in fact, eagerly changed and welcomed by the senate, following the antecedent and original process of state ( legislature) elections.

“I admire the Amish lifestyle, though I'd probably choke on their theology. But Lord have mercy, they are not hearkening back to a long distant past. My father grew up with horses and buggies among ordinary Iowa farmers, and he died only 13 years ago (granted, he was pretty old when he died). They do live off the land, (they're farmers), they resist modernity, technology, up to a point, and social media probably entirely. But, you know, they consume modern health care services, and they finance health care as a community responsibility. They like to travel--by train, since that fits into their idea of acceptable technology, to their extended connections among the Amish who have spread out across the northern Middle America States. I've chatted with a number of Amish on the train over the years, and they're pretty down to earth people. It's not like talking to someone who just crawled out from under a rock.”
-Bitter Crank

Decent portrayal. I’m happy to stipulate that the “distant” past is stretching it. I didn’t mean to imply that the Amish (et al) are bedfellows with Cro-magnons; rather, just to say they seriously defer to non-modern approaches and applications in their routine affairs.

Yes, their religiosity is as perplexing as it is suffocating; it wouldn’t be so bad were it intellectually, independently, acquired. I might even accept revelation, some spiritual epiphany-speak if you will, but it’s just that their religiosity, like their education in general, appears Pavlovian. It smells and seems cultish. Their script precedes them.

The good news is, they’re harmless. They ain’t the jihadists in search of a Caliphate. They just want to ride horses and buggies, rest quietly in yesterday’s design, and, perhaps, pray silently that the 21st c. scoundrels amongst them keep the state in working order for them to enjoy their tidy Shangri-la.

In rural pockets of PA, the Amish and “ Pennsylvania Dutch” folks abound. Mennonites, their multi-dimensional brethren, circumnavigate nearby.

You can take an easy Sunday drive from, say, Philly, and in little more than an hour or so observe their customs, habitat and culture.

What you’ll observe elementally is a return to the distant past. They drive horses and buggies, wear modest attire and live in farms or plain houses. They like to live off the land. They are a type of cloistered sect (with exceptions), as indifferent to modernity, technology and social media as is possible.

It isn’t a reach to say they are a libertarian paradigm by your standards. Private ownership and non-aggression are the sine qua non of their social order. They seek to be left alone, pacifistic (and, well, spiritually guided.)

They have managed, somehow, to endure. Their secrets solitude and sanctity remain. But when I see them, while a part of me wonders what hidden majesty they might own insofar as dutifully rejecting or ignoring social advances with putative success, I ask myself if they are somehow simply beneficial heirs of that which they eschew; I.e., the “State” and authority.

What would their libertarian enclave be without the very State entity which safeguards and protects them? Who amongst them, as they turn the other metaphorical cheek, has secured their liberty and defended their desire to remain passive?

It’s an easier thing to live in peace when the other guy is taking the bullets.

“He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.”

Evidence, please.

Like I asked, once you offer some factual comparisons between the GOP and Stalin, I’ll start to heed your warnings.

Stalin liquidated his political foes and ex-comrades; exiled, tortured and murdered his countrymen, including soldiers, academics, scientists and anyone he arbitrarily thought was against the State; i.e., against him; moreover, he purged well over 10 million of his glorious proletariat, whom he duped into putting him in charge, while starving half as many.

The moment you can provide a factual analogue between his reign of terror and the GOP qua Trump ( or the reverse)-get back to me. Until then, any historical or rhetorical nexus of the two is at best risible and suited to the empty bark of an ideologue.

“ The point of such comparisons is to draw attention to where we the US is headed if that behaviour is the new normal.“

Oh, please. The point of such comparisons is to introduce (knee-jerk) well poisoning to compensate for a mindless argument. Trump’s deficiencies are ample enough to excoriate him sans the silly Hitler, Stalin, Lucifer noise.

“In today’s G.O.P., as in Stalin’s Russia, evidently, decades of loyal public service count for nothing when the leader and his henchmen decide someone represents a threat and the apparatchiks have been ordered to take that person down. “

Just a guess, but I’ll go out on a limb and posit that Stalin’s crowd would’ve eschewed the due-process based exchanges in the agora and readily escorted Mueller to the gulag, alongside the other 15-20 million sent there during Stalin’s reign.

Perhaps the GOP needs a tutorial on what it means to mimic Stalin.

“Does or should Hotelling's Law apply to potential democratic candidates-who would want to win, quite obviously-against Trump in 2020?”

Yep. Presidential victory is captured by playing between the 20-yard lines, to use a football analogy. There’s your “Hotelling’s Law,” imperative if I understand it accurately.

Once a candidate crosses over into the margins, or inside the 20s, American voters get nervous and suspicious. Call it the fear or anxiety of extremism.

The Right experienced this liability, as a paradigm, with Goldwater. The Left ditto with the likes of McGovern et al. The sad news for the Left is that it hasn't yet learned its lesson; i.e., it continues to triumph fringe candidates.

Now, one could argue that Obama tip-toed into the 20s and won, except a closer examination of his victory was less about him-and any extremism-than about a resounding disgust with Bush the junior, whose Iraq misadventures and economic messes gift-wrapped the presidency for Obama.

Nor does the fact that Obama (being to the left of Hillary) beating Hillary refute my point. Again, Hillary was defeated by her own demons, as with Bush, and not by a cri de coeur for extremism. Indeed, Obama only transmogrified into a bonafide liberal AFTER he won the election (e.g., his gay-rights shift).

In short, the Left ( or Right) can pretend all it wants during the primaries that its respective fringe/extreme politics are meaningful; but in the general election, those same politics are a death march.

“And what specifically has Trump done to improve the unemployment rate for minorities?”

He’s induced businesses to hire them at a significant rate. The instruments behind the inducement range from de-regulation to tax breaks to favorable trade deals.

“The unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story.”

Of course not. Few accomplishments arrive sans the shoulders and genius of others before them. I’m not debating Trump’s road-to-unemployment successes. His success isn’t unilateral, to be sure, but that hardly forecloses on its merit.

“...during a boom created by his predecessor...”

The average unemployment rate under Obama for minorities, especially women, was %18 at its lowest (best) level. During the bulk of his reign, it averaged in the 20s. No “boon” existed. Regrets.

“Applauding the efforts of a racist.”

Double yawn.

Trump has reduced joblessness. Everywhere. Quickly. In the scheme of things, that’s the pivotal measure of a modern president. I applaud his efforts.