Trump

[Kevin Solway]

I see it the other way. The extinction of the species is final; there is no coming back from that. Totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, are fragile and temporary; there is always the possibility that they can be overthrown and liberty can be restored.

Ok, fair enough. In that case the individual might regard their own individual life to not be worth continuing. They might consider the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel to be too distant and remote.

As I stated earlier, I think our best chance is with freedom of speech.

You keep stating this without providing any reasoning or evidence.

I think the evidence is obvious. If people are not allowed to speak the truth then this can be devastating for society.

What is your opinion of Greta Thunberg?

I don't see anything interesting about her. I think she reads from a script and that she has been created by the media.

Nevertheless, science has been remarkably successful in creating the modern civilization that we all enjoy.

To me that's irrelevant. I only care about whether people are speaking the truth in specific instances. I don't care if they speak the truth most of the time.

Given this, and given that science is a highly successful enterprise that demonstrates its strong connection to reality, and given that most scientists do spend at least a portion of their lives engaged in rational pursuits, how does it compare to evangelical Christians?

I think you'll find that even evangelical Christians are rational some of the time. They wouldn't be able to function at all in society if they weren't.

On specific issues they might be more rational than the best of scientists.

None of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about what Trump meant in the phone call

Yes they did. When they spoke about what they interpreted from the phone call they were voicing their opinion.

it definitely wasn’t normal official business.

Trump doesn't do things in the normal official way, and that's exactly why people voted for him. Public servants would naturally like him to do things in the official way, otherwise their jobs are worthless.

At least, that is what they testified. I have no reason to disbelieve them.

If a person were partisan they would be very unlikely to claim to be partisan.

. . . the whole bribery scandal

This is just your personal opinion. The people who voted for Trump expect him to tackle corruption. Politicians don't get a pass just because they are democrats.

the sewer known as Breitbart.

You definitely read Breitbart more than I do. You can't stop talking about it. The more you talk about it, the more I think they must be reporting the truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

it definitely wasn’t normal official business.

Trump doesn't do things in the normal official way, and that's exactly why people voted for him. Public servants would naturally like him to do things in the official way, otherwise their jobs are worthless.

Nearly everything Trump does, being it destructive, upsetting or creative, appears like some attempt to do things "another way", often based on directly dealing between people, with Trump in the center of some negotiation, to break old deals and construct new deals. It's all he does, well, at least tries! He went against all normal policy and career diplomats when he retreated from JCPOA, TPP, NAFTA & Paris. Then he made personal contact with Kim Jong-un, first threatening him, which shocked many inside the administration, then meeting him, breaking all the rules and normal business. He tried the same with the Taliban, invited them to Washington to seal a deal, which angered even his close advisors and Republican allies. Not to mention his backslapping attitude with Putin despite also leaving the INF treaty and arming Ukraine, both upsetting Russia.

So we're looking at someone doing his own impulsive, reckless thing. It's not a given that it wouldn't work in cases but just bravado will not pull it off. One can say it makes the world a more dangerous place but the world is already very dangerous to begin with. Also one should in the end represent what the voters require: seeing someone trying something else than official policies seen by many as dangerously broken (e.g. foreign policy).

In any case: there were certainly unhealthy ties between the Ukraine government and the Democrat campaign in 2016 and it seems that Ukraine really wanted to kill off Trump’s candidacy. Does it compare with hacking groups releasing emails? For me it also depends on the nature of the information. The leaked emails are "true" but if Ukraine actually assisted with circulating false information, then I'd think Trump might be justified to withhold military assistance until they would clean up their act.

However if it would be true that the request to Ukraine was to only say publicly that investigations were starting, that would be unacceptable. But this is not clear from the hearings. But that career diplomats oppose Trump's attempt to put the spotlight on Ukraine 2016 is fully understandable.

[David Quinn]

Nearly everything Trump does, being it destructive, upsetting or creative, appears like some attempt to do things "another way", often based on directly dealing between people, with Trump in the center of some negotiation, to break old deals and construct new deals. It's all he does, well, at least tries! He went against all normal policy and career diplomats when he retreated from JCPOA, TPP, NAFTA & Paris. Then he made personal contact with Kim Jong-un, first threatening him, which shocked many inside the administration, then meeting him, breaking all the rules and normal business. He tried the same with the Taliban, invited them to Washington to seal a deal, which angered even his close advisors and Republican allies. Not to mention his backslapping attitude with Putin despite also leaving the INF treaty and arming Ukraine, both upsetting Russia.

So we're looking at someone doing his own impulsive, reckless thing. It's not a given that it wouldn't work in cases but just bravado will not pull it off.

Yes, the trouble with his approach is that it is one-dimensional. Trump never bothered to learn how to function in intelligent educated company, and he doesn't know how to employ his intellect in any kind of sophisticated manner. Thus, in any given situation, his options are always limited. He can bully, he can shout, he can bluster, he can deceive, he can confuse, he can intuit people's weaknesses and manipulate them, he can seek to destroy what is already out there - but that is all he can do. There is never any Plan B or Plan C - except, maybe, to panic.

This makes him very predictable and easily manipulated by those who can see through his bluster - which, of course, the Chinese, the Russians, the Turks, the North Koreans, etc, so readily do.

In any case: there were certainly unhealthy ties between the Ukraine government and the Democrat campaign in 2016 and it seems that Ukraine really wanted to kill off Trump’s candidacy. Does it compare with hacking groups releasing emails? For me it also depends on the nature of the information.

For a different perspective on the matter, Serhiy Leshchenko refutes the allegations contained in the articles you posted: Rudy Giuliani accused me of exposing Paul Manafort’s Ukraine deals to help U.S. Democrats. That’s a lie.

The leaked emails are "true" but if Ukraine actually assisted with circulating false information, then I'd think Trump might be justified to withhold military assistance until they would clean up their act.

The trouble is, why did he do it outside of normal official channels? Why was a reason never given for the money being withheld? Why was the transcript of the July 25 call immediately locked away on a ultra-classified server? Why were so many people becoming very disturbed by what was going on? Why does Trump keep blocking key witnesses from testifying on the matter?

[David Quinn]

As I stated earlier, I think our best chance is with freedom of speech.

You keep stating this without providing any reasoning or evidence.

I think the evidence is obvious. If people are not allowed to speak the truth then this can be devastating for society.

Again, you're not addressing the issue I raised.

Personally, I am more concerned about quality of thought. That's the key for me. What is the point of having free speech if the only thing that is ever expressed is garbage? I like what Kierkegaard said: "People almost never make use of the freedoms they have, for example, freedom of thought; by way of compensation they demand freedom of expression instead."

He is spot on. I would rather people forget their obsession with free speech and focus instead on cultivating a free brain.

(Man, I love Kierkegaard. It is so refreshing and delightful to read someone who is so full of life.)

Anyway, I want to ask you about your political orientation, Kevin. A couple of years ago, you said at one point that you were normally a left-wing person, and at another point you said that you were a libertarian. I find this a little confusing. Can you clarify this?

[Kevin Solway]

Why were so many people becoming very disturbed by what was going on?

Hysteria? Mass insanity? Groupthink? Peer pressure? Political bias? There are countless possible explanations. We can't spend all our time analyzing why people think the way they do. We would be here till the end of time.

Why does Trump keep blocking key witnesses from testifying on the matter?

Again, there are many possible explanations. He may think he has been elected to do an important job, and he doesn't want to be sidetracked by what he considers to be corrupt and politically motivated accusations. There is room for countless speculations, which would take forever.

I think the biggest hurdle the left now faces comes from the handing down of the Mueller report. It means that the left has lost credibility. They have cried wolf, or shouted "fire", too many times. For three years the left wing media has been saying there was a conspiracy between Trump and the Russians. Then came the Mueller report, at a cost of about 30 million US dollars, which showed that no such evidence exists. Now it looks as though the left are desperately grasping at straws, and you have people like Bill Maher hoping that the economy crashes. Then you have the left trying to protect the Bidens, who at least appear to be very dodgy. The ordinary person sees all this and doesn't view it favorably.

[David Quinn]

Again, there are many possible explanations. He may think he has been elected to do an important job, and he doesn't want to be sidetracked by what he considers to be corrupt and politically motivated accusations. There is room for countless speculations, which would take forever.

The quickest way to resolve it would be to allow everyone involved to testify (free speech, anyone?), so that we can all get to the bottom of the matter. It would probably only take a week or two.

[Kevin Solway]

What is the point of having free speech if the only thing that is ever expressed is garbage?

If the people in power are irrational and corrupt then they will stop intelligent and wise people from speaking.

That's what has happened historically, and that's what is happening now, especially with the power of the large tech giants, and the power of the education and media sectors.

Anyway, I want to ask you about your political orientation, Kevin. A couple of years ago, you said at one point that you were normally a left-wing person, and at another point you said that you were a libertarian. I find this a little confusing. Can you clarify this?

Politically I am unchanged. I am in the same place I have always been, but the left has moved further to the left - to an insane degree in my opinion. The modern left has now rejected me, and no longer wants me on their side, leaving me, by default, in what is now the center. If the modern left doesn't believe in the existence of centrists - if it has to be either black or white - then they will see me as right wing.

I regard myself as being in the center because I hold some views from either side of politics.

I regard myself as libertarian in the sense that I believe in individual freedom, and I am anti-authoritarian. I am deeply skeptical of people who regard themselves to be authorities, or whom people regard to be authorities. This way of thinking used to be a part of left-wing thinking, but it seems to me that is no longer the case.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . so that we can all get to the bottom of the matter. It would probably only take a week or two.

I don't believe there is a "bottom" because the accusations are guaranteed to keep coming. The power of people to dig dirt and find fault in other people has no limit.

But I believe that Trump has said that he wants to have a trial in the senate, so we'll see how that goes.

[jupiviv]

Climate change is a far more serious issue than human rights.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. In my view a basic level of human dignity and quality of life, which includes freedom of speech and freedom of thought (what I call "rights") - is the most important thing.

Widespread death and destruction is unambiguously worse for human life than even a *total* lack of rights. Let alone the single right of free speech, within the context of a minuscule fraction of human history (a few decades leading up to the present day). And that isn't even taking into account your definition of "free speech" which I happen to know by virtue of our email exchange (and your posts on this thread) to be incoherent to the point of self-parody.

There is more than enough evidence that Trump has been involved in criminal activity throughout his life.

So why isn't he in jail? If there is clear evidence that someone is a criminal then they are found guilty in a court of law.

That is a fallacious question. Guilty people can avoid trial or conviction, and innocent people can be wrongfully accused and punished, regardless of the presence or lack of evidence for their crimes.

More to the point, there is solid evidence for both of the charges levelled at Trump by Democrats.

That's your opinion, but I disagree.

No it's a fact being reported by all mainstream and alternative news sources that I trust. You can claim they are all lying but that's just your opinion unless you provide some evidence.

The Mueller Report did not find actionable evidence of crimes but it explicitly stated such evidence may indeed exist.

"Evidence may exist" doesn't mean anything.

Uncertainty isn't "meaningless". The two charges I mentioned are the Ukraine quid pro quo and Trump's ordering of senior advisors to refuse to testify in the impeachment hearings.

The Mueller report stated evidence of Trump's crimes may exist despite its failure to discover them because "[t]he evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred" (pg 214 of pdf).

Evidence may exist that Hilary Clinton is an alien from another planet. The statement is meaningless. Evidence may exist. Or it may not.

Irrelevant because your counterexample is an assertion of *logical* possibility having no bearing upon empirical claims.

I was pointing out to David that his predictions and speculations are extremely unreliable, so in my view he's wasting his time making them.

Yes, but only in order to argue that his claim about Trump's criminality is wrong.

Once we get away from the right, we can encounter large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception, paranoia and fear.

Like feminism and the left wing media?

Strawman.

I don't agree. In my view these "large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception" are a fantasy. An enormous fantasy.

You're identifying the people David is referring to with your definition of leftists & feminists. Based on your emails, I know that you define those things to be insane authoritarian ideologies of no fixed character. That's why it's a strawman.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that selective rationality is just a sophisticated version of irrationality. Thus if one person values rational thought more than another but only within a very limited context, it does not necessarily follow that they are more rational. My essay, "Truth is the root of all evil", explains and vindicates this argument.

But the above has nothing to do with what you're saying. You are asserting that opposing politics, policies and political views are equally deluded because virtually everyone is equally deluded. It doesn't take much wisdom or even intelligence to figure out that those two positions are entirely distinct, yet you're acting as if they are interchangeable and switching from one to the other based on whatever stupid point you want to justify in the moment.

[David Quinn]

What is the point of having free speech if the only thing that is ever expressed is garbage?

If the people in power are irrational and corrupt then they will stop intelligent and wise people from speaking.

That's what has happened historically, and that's what is happening now, especially with the power of the large tech giants, and the power of the education and media sectors.

And the Trump administration, and right wing authorities and spokespeople more generally. It must be time for some more examples of the right's war on free speech!:

Where the Trump administration is thwarting House oversight. Trump has not only been blocking witness testimony and the release of documents from the impeachment inquiry, but from all inquiries and investigations right across the board. This article provides links to the numerous ways Trump has been suppressing free speech for the sole purpose of protecting himself.

The Hundreds Of Ways Trump Has Trampled Science. This article provides numerous examples of the Trump administration's suppression of scientific thought and practice. It is not only climate change debate that he is suppressing.

Fire Haze- Media Watch - Monday 25/11/2019. This is the latest episode of Media Watch, which airs on ABC in Australia, and is generally one of the few honest, intelligent programs on TV. In this episode, the program does a good job of outlining the kind of persecution and suppression tactics that both the Australian federal government (which is almost entirely comprised of climate change deniers) and their lackeys in the Murdoch media collectively engage in to denigrate any individual who bravely speaks up in defense of science. The segment runs for the first five minutes of the program.

Anyway, I want to ask you about your political orientation, Kevin. A couple of years ago, you said at one point that you were normally a left-wing person, and at another point you said that you were a libertarian. I find this a little confusing. Can you clarify this?

Politically I am unchanged. I am in the same place I have always been, but the left has moved further to the left - to an insane degree in my opinion. The modern left has now rejected me, and no longer wants me on their side, leaving me, by default, in what is now the center. If the modern left doesn't believe in the existence of centrists - if it has to be either black or white - then they will see me as right wing.

I regard myself as being in the center because I hold some views from either side of politics.

I regard myself as libertarian in the sense that I believe in individual freedom, and I am anti-authoritarian. I am deeply skeptical of people who regard themselves to be authorities, or whom people regard to be authorities. This way of thinking used to be a part of left-wing thinking, but it seems to me that is no longer the case.

What about economically? You are clearly opposed to social justice warriors and their ilk, but what about economic socialism? Given that you say you are in the centre, I presume that means that you do embrace a certain amount of socialism. Is that correct? For example, what is your view of the Democrat's aim to provide free health care for all American citizens?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Widespread death and destruction is unambiguously worse for human life than even a *total* lack of rights.

Death and destruction in terms of physical happenstance have little to do with worth, value and meaning, let alone wisdom. If for example spiritual life would be defined as a rarity flowering once in a while and perhaps never again, leaving behind a world of parrots and zombies, what's then the point? If the human spirit would become broken beyond repair, any attempt to make the world better and safer for what's left has simply little value and future. Of course wisdom could bounce back, like life could as well after some destructive periods. But if survival of wisdom is at stake and not simply taken for granted to occur simply because humans are still around, it's important to look at our systems of thought, control and communication, the symbolic realm, the business of meaning and creation, as being infinitely more important than saving our habitat or creating some stable society.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

For a different perspective on the matter, Serhiy Leshchenko refutes the allegations contained in the articles you posted: Rudy Giuliani accused me of exposing Paul Manafort’s Ukraine deals to help U.S. Democrats. That’s a lie.

Actually he doesn't really "refute", he seems to simply admit that yes, as member of parliament he relayed this document from some anonymous source during election time in the US, discrediting the Trump campaign, not because he wanted to help Democrats but simply because he hated Manafort and Yanukovych. In any case he was peddling a document which had great effects on the US campaign. Does it matter that he claims he didn't really want to help Democrats or that this timing was coincidental? It's a bit hard to believe that he wouldn't have connections in a time the Democrats were compiling exactly this kind of information!

The trouble is, why did he do it outside of normal official channels?

As I just wrote, that's what he constantly does, even before his election. Read any unauthorized biography for a clue.

Why was the transcript of the July 25 call immediately locked away on a ultra-classified server?

Considering what is now started based on one complaint from some anonymous spy, one could surmise that leaks indeed had become increasingly a problem since Trump talks his own "disturbing" game during high level talks. See earlier leaks with Mexico’s president and Australia’s PM.

Why were so many people becoming very disturbed by what was going on?

Trump clearly acts like government and diplomacy as they are used to have isn't needed for results. Next week it will disturb someone else again.

Why does Trump keep blocking key witnesses from testifying on the matter?

Nobody can be expected to cooperate freely with an investigation which potentially creates even more backlash or speculative details. Or perhaps way more rules were broken or bent? Or Trump is still waiting to get more confirmation on his own theories about what Democrats did in 2016.

[David Quinn]

And that isn't even taking into account your definition of "free speech" which I happen to know by virtue of our email exchange (and your posts on this thread) to be incoherent to the point of self-parody.

Can you expand on that? What is the nature of the self-parody?

[visheshdewan050193]

Just going to dip in over here again, I'd be interested to hear about what Dan, David and Rhett have to say about the Senate and Congress supporting the HK bill (with Trump wavering about it).

[Dan Rowden]

Hong Kong is possibly the most potent contemporary test for geo-political and diplomatic sanity from the US we've seen since Vietnam. Yes, I'm excluding Iraq because that didn't involve sense or diplomacy on any level. I'm not prepared to make any predictions until I see clearer indication from China as to how economically significant they see Hong Kong as being - in its current state.

For no reason I can rationally identify I'm expecting China to back down and understand Hong Kong as the hugely significant economic gateway that it is. I'm not sure they can afford to undermine that and I'm not sure how much the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act will factor into their ultimate thinking.

[visheshdewan050193]

How about factoring information such as this?
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1164726.shtml

[David Quinn]

I'm not interested in people's mere opinions. The impeachment proceedings were a stream of people giving their opinion about what Trump meant in a phone call. Their opinion is worthless. Different people have different opinions, and different interpretations. In fact we don't really even know if what they expressed was their opinion, or someone else's opinion, or something else entirely.

I hate to break it to you, but witness testimony (i.e. sworn opinion) is considered to be evidence in a court of law. This is a core legal principle that applies in America, Australia and almost everywhere else.

Without this principle, it would be exceedingly difficult to prosecute criminals and prove their guilt. It would also be very difficult for an innocent person to prove his own innocence. Indeed, the justice system would more or less grind to a halt. Almost all criminals would escape being convicted and punished.

From the point of view of the justice system, opinion is not meaningless. Your bizarre views on the nature and validity of opinion places you at odds with thousands of years of legal history.

Nevertheless, science has been remarkably successful in creating the modern civilization that we all enjoy.

To me that's irrelevant. I only care about whether people are speaking the truth in specific instances. I don't care if they speak the truth most of the time.

So in effect, you have turned yourself into a fact-checker. A mere filing clerk.

How does one go from a 5th level bodhisattva to a filing clerk?

Well, at least you must be very busy with Trump being in our faces all of the time. According to the most recent figures I could find, Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims since his inauguration. That’s an average of 22 public lies a day. That would keep any clerk busy!

But then, you always turn a blind eye when it comes to Trump, don’t you. So you’re not even a competent fact-checker.

What about the noble task of awakening people to the Infinite? Where does that enter the picture? You say you haven’t changed, but you used to passionately use scientific facts and theories as a means to stimulate people’s minds and excite their desire to become enlightened. Nowadays, instead, you seem to look upon scientists with suspicion and confine your attention to the negative task of highlighting whatever failings they might have. Your priories have entirely shifted.

As a rule, you used to be high-minded, uninhibited and expansive. Now you are dark-minded, mistrustful, even paranoid.

What a decline.

[Dan Rowden]

The impeachment proceedings were a stream of people giving their opinion about what Trump meant in a phone call. Their opinion is worthless.

I hate to break it to you, but witness testimony (i.e. sworn opinion) is considered to be evidence in a court of law. This is a core legal principle that applies in America, Australia and almost everywhere else.

That's not even the core problem with what Kevin said, which is itself a meaningless opinion; it's meaningless because it's factually errant. The testimonies given were not just a stream of people giving their opinion of a phone call. Only a few people were privy to any specific calls. The testimonies were a stream of people giving corroborating evidence of a specific cohort, including Trump, who sought to influence Ukraine, by various means, to get dirt on the Bidens.

Pool ol' Rudy seems certain to be the next candidate for inmate of the hour. Poor Rudy.

I agree though that Kevin's approach to matters would make the legal process unworkable, even though it's been shown through research into cognition and perception that witness testimony can be 'problematic'.

I've recently been watching National Geographic's series 'Brain Games'. It's really quite brilliant. Definitely worth a look. You can catch it on the new streaming service from Disney if you can't find it anywhere else.

[David Quinn]

The trouble is, why did he do it outside of normal official channels?

As I just wrote, that's what he constantly does, even before his election. Read any unauthorized biography for a clue.

And why do you think he constantly goes outside of normal official channels? Because he knows that it is an effective way to implement his corrupt and self-serving aims in a stealthy manner.

And yes, Diebert, I've read some of those autobiographies. They all point to a lifetime of corruption and criminality.

Trump doesn't do things in the normal official way, and that's exactly why people voted for him.

It's one thing for voters to elect a Trump-like person who likes to go outside of normal channels, but they shouldn't be surprised when this aberrant behaviour quickly devolves into criminality. Trump doesn't have the discipline or the high-mindedness to deviate from the norm without falling into corruption or criminality.

Public servants would naturally like him to do things in the official way, otherwise their jobs are worthless.

As these public servants pointed out, what Trump did was weaken America’s ability to act coherently with other countries. Having two channels, an official channel and a second “irregular” one, sends mixed messages and confuses other countries about what to expect from America. These public servants also pointed out that what Trump effectively announced with this behaviour is that he is happy to do corrupt deals with any country willing to help him politically, which again weakens America.

I like what Dan said earlier in the thread:

How bad a person Trump is, taken as an individual issue, is only as important as people's ability to accept the fact of it. Denial of it by otherwise historically sane people is a fucking serious matter. But more broadly the 'regime' he now presides over is incredibly and openly corrupt, brazenly nepotistic, anti-democratic, fantastically kleptocratic, uniquely inept - but apparently all of that is ok because they may just accidentally put some uppity nigger feminists in their place. Sigh.

Meanwhile, more and more evidence of the bribery scandal and other associated crimes is coming to light every single day.

You gotta laugh at Devin Nunes. What a clown.

[jupiviv]

Widespread death and destruction is unambiguously worse for human life than even a *total* lack of rights.

Death and destruction in terms of physical happenstance have little to do with worth, value and meaning, let alone wisdom.

I 100% agree! But Kevin wasn't talking about choosing wisdom over life and happiness. In fact he was stating that life and happiness are very important.

But if survival of wisdom is at stake and not simply taken for granted to occur simply because humans are still around, it's important to look at our systems of thought, control and communication, the symbolic realm, the business of meaning and creation, as being infinitely more important than saving our habitat or creating some stable society.

Sure. First question - how can the right to free speech exist in a meaningful sense if it does not also grace its bearer with the duty of speaking honestly without any regard for life and happiness? It can't, because nothing would prevent the abuse of this right towards dishonest and self-serving ends at the expense of its use in promoting honest and virtuous ones like upholding a universally enforceable right to free speech.

[David Quinn]

According to the most recent figures I could find, Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims since his inauguration. That’s an average of 22 public lies a day.

Correction, it is 13.5 lies a day.

The figure of 22 refers to the preceding 65 days since the last count was conducted. In other words, the number of public lies that Trump promotes each day has been increasing over the past few months.

[David Quinn]

I agree though that Kevin's approach to matters would make the legal process unworkable, even though it's been shown through research into cognition and perception that witness testimony can be 'problematic'.

That's why you try to have corroborating evidence, from other witnesses, forensic investigations, expert analyses, etc. It minimizes uncertainty and error.

I've recently been watching National Geographic's series 'Brain Games'. It's really quite brilliant. Definitely worth a look. You can catch it on the new streaming service from Disney if you can't find it anywhere else.

Yeah, I caught that a couple of years ago. Good show. Very educational.

[Kevin Solway]

According to the most recent figures I could find, Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims[/url] since his inauguration.

That comes from the media, which makes billions of false and misleading claims every day.

[Kevin Solway]

witness testimony (i.e. sworn opinion) is considered to be evidence in a court of law.

That is completely meaningless, since as I've said many times already, evidence can be false, fabricated, inapplicable, etc.

Without this principle, it would be exceedingly difficult to prosecute criminals and prove their guilt.

Even direct eye-witness evidence has been found to be extremely unreliable, let alone people giving their interpretations of phone calls they never even heard.

I only care about whether people are speaking the truth in specific instances.

So in effect, you have turned yourself into a fact-checker. A mere filing clerk.

If you think that someone who is interested in facts is "a mere filing clerk" then that's your personal view, but I don't share your view. Not at all.

Nowadays, instead, you seem to look upon scientists with suspicion

I've always viewed scientists with suspicion. I was trained to be a scientist, and we were trained to view scientists with suspicion. During our training we studied countless ways in which scientists lie and cheat, or are unintentionally corrupted.

As a rule, you used to be high-minded, uninhibited and expansive. Now you are dark-minded, mistrustful, even paranoid.

What a decline.

As I've said, I think all your speculations on these matters have been completely false, so I think your speculations are worthless.

[David Quinn]

witness testimony (i.e. sworn opinion) is considered to be evidence in a court of law.

That is completely meaningless, since as I've said many times already, evidence can be false, fabricated, inapplicable, etc.

In other words, you are railing against the entire justice system.

Even direct eye-witness evidence has been found to be extremely unreliable, let alone people giving their interpretations of phone calls they never even heard.

Let's imagine that you are walking along the street one day and the police come along and arrest you for molesting a child. A few days later, while you are languishing in detention awaiting trial, a woman comes forward to assert your innocence by claiming that you were elsewhere at the time and is willing to testify to that effect. Are you going to step up like a man and say, "No, officers, don't listen to her. Her opinion is meaningless."

I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?

Nowadays, instead, you seem to look upon scientists with suspicion

I've always viewed scientists with suspicion. I was trained to be a scientist, and we were trained to view scientists with suspicion. During our training we studied countless ways in which scientists lie and cheat, or are unintentionally corrupted.

There is healthy skepticism, and then there is morbid paranoia. You used to excel at the former, but over the past few years you have sunk into the darkness of the latter, and it has stripped all the life out of you.

According to the most recent figures I could find, Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims since his inauguration.

That comes from the media, which makes billions of false and misleading claims every day.

What does this have to do with anything? You claimed earlier that, "I only care about whether people are speaking the truth in specific instances. I don't care if they speak the truth most of the time". So why are you now suddenly doing an about face and trying to whitewash this particular truth-claim by making vague appeals to the supposed dishonesty of the media?

You're all over the place, Kevin.

Politically I am unchanged. I am in the same place I have always been, but the left has moved further to the left - to an insane degree in my opinion. The modern left has now rejected me, and no longer wants me on their side, leaving me, by default, in what is now the center. If the modern left doesn't believe in the existence of centrists - if it has to be either black or white - then they will see me as right wing.

I regard myself as being in the center because I hold some views from either side of politics.

I regard myself as libertarian in the sense that I believe in individual freedom, and I am anti-authoritarian. I am deeply skeptical of people who regard themselves to be authorities, or whom people regard to be authorities. This way of thinking used to be a part of left-wing thinking, but it seems to me that is no longer the case.

What about economically? You are clearly opposed to social justice warriors and their ilk, but what about economic socialism? Given that you say you are in the centre, I presume that means that you do embrace a certain amount of socialism. Is that correct? For example, what is your view of the Democrat's aim to provide free health care for all American citizens?