Pathological liars once proven to be so automatically forfeit all presumption of good faith for quite literally anything they say. You cannot actually verify what is a real belief and simply a lie to advance an agenda with such people, which is why they should never be allowed to ever hold any positions of power whatsoever. If we lived in a functioning society with a real moral foundation, none of this would have ever happened in the first place.
Beautifully argued, Mike. As a physical scientist, I've always felt this defines a vast gulf between science and law. The whole mens rea argument seems like a door of infinite size that any con artist can drive his truck through without hesitation. In fact, the law seems to posit that there is no such thing as a con -- anyone's belief is what they say it is as long as there is no proof to the contrary (which, of course, there never is when the con is well-played).
You might bristle at my book on meaning when it comes out, since it largely argues institutional science is guilty of much the same thing. And I have shared previews of those arguments in some essays here.
Excellent Article that focuses on a central issue that is given the two step by the corporate media it It touches on the monkeys on a stick that run among the major political partners. It spells out the ignored moral weight and ties it all to the long historical degradation-on target. And then we land here.
For many decades we have reasonably intelligent presidents who all were trained by a monkey on stick and his monkey minions all in red or blue bow ties so they picked up one cadence or another. These presidents could talk there way around the block as long as they could take long breath or crack a planned joke to give themselves enough tine to come up with the right dodge or that any answer would come even without any syntax they could scrounge enough key words to get then through. If any regular person came to your house and performed with all these talking tics you would tell them to fuck off.
So the door was open for someone who would say whatever came to mind and mean it.At least when said it. He hooked up wth the Apostles on the religious right and made promises to the tech boys that they could follow their own religion- downloading their brains on to tiny tokens of silicon and then jettison them into deep space to float forever in everlasting darkness.
As for belief, for many it was novel, norm busting, erratic even dangerous. And they loved it ,the cussing, the racism, the misogyny, the dark immigrants,transsexuals- he brought all. All the things they feared and he sliced and diced with great cruelty.
They loved that he was their expression.
The sincerity? Sounded sincere anyway.It came out too fast (and the cussing) to be any thing but authentic.He was the “anointed one’ meaning he has a hotline to God, meaning when he said pussy it came directly from God. In NAR tongue thats rhe golden rule: the ends (theocracy) justifies the means- (lawlessness on a grand scale).
Belief? He believed what he needed to believe to feel high on himself
There was a disconnect between belief and action and even some semblance of the truth and yet his was institutionally protected as if by a formidable moat,the SJC ,congress , the military,justice dept, ICE and so on.
This was a tough article to get through with my engineering mind. I think the objective of this article is as Judge Roberts stated it in 1940. All we can hold a person accountable for is their actions, not their beliefs. That makes perfect sense to me. When the actions driven by personal beliefs violate the laws of the country he leads, then accountability needs to take place.
It's interesting you mention Carl Schmitt and the belief that the executive makes the act right. As an enabler of Hitler and a philosophical hero of Peter Thiel, the danger of his philosophy is apparent. It's also apparent why so many people who never heard of him, would find his philosophy convenient.
Thiel selected Trump and made him palatable to the monied as, a part of the plan in 2015. They didn't need to question his beliefs.
I've been following. I've been sorting out the Republican playbook to stop new Dems from being sworn in. If they are certified by their states. On January 3rd, before being sworn in, they vote for speaker. This would likely result in a Dem Speaker. Does this mean certification has to be stopped at the state level for Reps to stand a chance of holding the house?
Pathological liars once proven to be so automatically forfeit all presumption of good faith for quite literally anything they say. You cannot actually verify what is a real belief and simply a lie to advance an agenda with such people, which is why they should never be allowed to ever hold any positions of power whatsoever. If we lived in a functioning society with a real moral foundation, none of this would have ever happened in the first place.
Everything Trump says is in bad faith, even if he DOES believe it, because his motivation is in bad faith.
Beautifully argued, Mike. As a physical scientist, I've always felt this defines a vast gulf between science and law. The whole mens rea argument seems like a door of infinite size that any con artist can drive his truck through without hesitation. In fact, the law seems to posit that there is no such thing as a con -- anyone's belief is what they say it is as long as there is no proof to the contrary (which, of course, there never is when the con is well-played).
You might bristle at my book on meaning when it comes out, since it largely argues institutional science is guilty of much the same thing. And I have shared previews of those arguments in some essays here.
I look forward to the bristling.
Excellent article
It is like - I believe she is a witch- I believe witches are bad- so I killed her. How was I suppose to know she wasn't a witch.
Your Executive Toddler argument is spot on. They push it to the extreme.
All they live on lies and hate.
It's a pity that your style is sometimes opaque where it could be clearer, because your reasoning is admirable.
Excellent Article that focuses on a central issue that is given the two step by the corporate media it It touches on the monkeys on a stick that run among the major political partners. It spells out the ignored moral weight and ties it all to the long historical degradation-on target. And then we land here.
For many decades we have reasonably intelligent presidents who all were trained by a monkey on stick and his monkey minions all in red or blue bow ties so they picked up one cadence or another. These presidents could talk there way around the block as long as they could take long breath or crack a planned joke to give themselves enough tine to come up with the right dodge or that any answer would come even without any syntax they could scrounge enough key words to get then through. If any regular person came to your house and performed with all these talking tics you would tell them to fuck off.
So the door was open for someone who would say whatever came to mind and mean it.At least when said it. He hooked up wth the Apostles on the religious right and made promises to the tech boys that they could follow their own religion- downloading their brains on to tiny tokens of silicon and then jettison them into deep space to float forever in everlasting darkness.
As for belief, for many it was novel, norm busting, erratic even dangerous. And they loved it ,the cussing, the racism, the misogyny, the dark immigrants,transsexuals- he brought all. All the things they feared and he sliced and diced with great cruelty.
They loved that he was their expression.
The sincerity? Sounded sincere anyway.It came out too fast (and the cussing) to be any thing but authentic.He was the “anointed one’ meaning he has a hotline to God, meaning when he said pussy it came directly from God. In NAR tongue thats rhe golden rule: the ends (theocracy) justifies the means- (lawlessness on a grand scale).
Belief? He believed what he needed to believe to feel high on himself
There was a disconnect between belief and action and even some semblance of the truth and yet his was institutionally protected as if by a formidable moat,the SJC ,congress , the military,justice dept, ICE and so on.
This was a tough article to get through with my engineering mind. I think the objective of this article is as Judge Roberts stated it in 1940. All we can hold a person accountable for is their actions, not their beliefs. That makes perfect sense to me. When the actions driven by personal beliefs violate the laws of the country he leads, then accountability needs to take place.
Your thoughts?
I value thr way you think, write and present.
It's interesting you mention Carl Schmitt and the belief that the executive makes the act right. As an enabler of Hitler and a philosophical hero of Peter Thiel, the danger of his philosophy is apparent. It's also apparent why so many people who never heard of him, would find his philosophy convenient.
Thiel selected Trump and made him palatable to the monied as, a part of the plan in 2015. They didn't need to question his beliefs.
Trump, the executive, is no accident.
Peter Thiel is openly an admirer of Schmitt and includes him in his Antichrist lectures.
I've been following. I've been sorting out the Republican playbook to stop new Dems from being sworn in. If they are certified by their states. On January 3rd, before being sworn in, they vote for speaker. This would likely result in a Dem Speaker. Does this mean certification has to be stopped at the state level for Reps to stand a chance of holding the house?