About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Friday, November 6, 2020

NOW WE WILL SEE IF DEMOCRATIC LEADERS CARE ABOUT ALL AMERICANS, OR IF THEY ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS IN DISGUISE, COWERING BEFORE THEIR LEADER....

 

WITH TRUMPS NOMINATION OF AMY CONEY BARRET FOR THE SUPREME COURT, LET US SEE IF DEMOCRATS FILE SUIT TO PREVENT A SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING, WHICH WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENIED TO MERRICK GARLAND...

TO BE CONTINUED...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

REMEMBER THIS BLAST FROM THE PAST: REMEMBER STRIKE 3?

WHAT PROGRESSIVES MUST LEARN: EDUCATE YOURSELF, PAY ATTENTION. AND SCRUTINIZE ALL ELECTION RESULTS.

So what should Progressives, Liberals , and other Groups that believe Government has a Moral Responsibility to Aid those in need, (which doesn't include returning FUNDS LOST THROUGH BAD INVESTMENTS TO THE WEALTHY, WHICH MEANS ALL TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THE BILL), to change the minds of those who are buying into the LIES AND FALSEHOODS BEING FED TO THEM BY SELF-CENTERED AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS?

Trump President America American United St

#1-  Acknowledge that the Selfish, Self-Centered, and Dishonest also Vote, so Quit trying to Win over everyone through Fear of Confrontation.

#2-  Stop Allowing Republicans and Ultra Right Wing Candidates to Hijack the Moral High Ground, when its Media Campaign is Transparent, and Easily Refuted.   

#3-  By the Almost Incredible Inability to Stand Up to the Outright Lies and Misrepresentations that
are thrown around come Election Time, regarding Programs that Help the Poor and Disadvantaged.

#4-  When Statistics are Trotted Out about possible Fraudulent Activities in Social Programs, Research and Demand the Sources for such Claims, and Contrast Them with them with  Public Funds Lost Through; 

-  Corporate Bailouts. 

-  Tax Breaks that do not, or are not required
to Benefit the Taxpayer.

-  Funds Acquired Through Government Contracts,
that are Shifted to Foreign Markets with no Positive
Affects on the U.S. Economy.

-  Refusing to Raise Wages to a Minimal Level, which
Encourages Self- Sufficiency, and Decreases the 
Need for Government Aid.

... Other Policies that Push an Agenda that
Benefits a Narrow Set of American Citizens.  

#5-  Point Out to Voters, who have Benefited from 
Programs Instituted by the Progressive Agenda, that
what has been Won by Voting, can be Lost or Unfunded
by Not Voting.

MOST IMPORTANT:

MAKE SURE THAT ELECTIONS, AT ANY LEVEL, ARE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY FOR FRAUD. DO NOT TAKE THE RESULTS AT FACE VALUE, BECAUSE EVEN THE LOSERS AT THE POLLS MAY NOT HAVE THE FORTITUDE OR INCLINATION TO CHALLENGE  OUTCOMES THAT ARE FIXED. THAT IS WHAT THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAS TAUGHT US.

STRIKE 1.

- THE REPUBLICANS TOOK CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT A FIGHT 
BECAUSE THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE OF SENATE DEMOCRATS ALLOWED MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL TO EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN FILLING A VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

STRIKE 2.

- DONALD TRUMP WAS HANDED THE WHITE 
HOUSE AFTER A FRAUDULENT ELECTION, WHICH WAS NOT CONTESTED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE U.S. SENATE, OR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REP.

WHAT IS STRIKE 3 GOING TO BE?
- ?

SPARE US THE OUTRAGE, AND DO YOUR JOBS THIS TIME.

 



EVERY TIME I HEAR  THAT DONALD TRUMPS RANTINGS HAVE BEEN MET BY INDIGNANT OUTRAGE FROM DEMOCRATS/PROGRESSIVES, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, OR EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT, I THINK OF ONE THING: 

THIS CORRUPT, INCOMPETENT JOKE WAS GIVEN THE WHITE HOUSE IN A RIGGED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. EVEN WITH THE EVIDENCE APPARENT TO ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION, NOTHING WAS DONE. YOU WONDER WHY HE SAYS AND DOES THE THINGS HE DOES? WELL MAYBE HE, HIS REPUBLICAN ALLIES, AND MOSCOW FIGURED THAT SINCE THE DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES HANDED OVER THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT A FIGHT, THAT A CORRUPT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COULD BE MANAGED.

THEY WERE RIGHT. 
SO WHAT SHOULD TRUMP BE SCARED OF NOW? 
WHEN YOU ACTUALLY SHOW THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO STAND UP TO HIM, (AND NOT FOR PHOTO OPS AND GLIB ONE LINERS THAT ARE FORGOTTEN DAYS LATER), THEN MAYBE YOUR OUTRAGE MIGHT MEAN SOMETHING.
UNTIL THEN, YOU'RE NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE.

www.searchingforreason.net : THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY ... https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/p/the-2016-presidential-election.html?spref=tw
www.searchingforreason.net : THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY... https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/p/part-5.html?spref=tw

Thursday, November 5, 2020

I'M SORRY, WHERE WAS THE CONTROVERSY IN 2016? (THIS IS BOTH SAD AND HILARIOUS)

                                 
                             

SINCE THE DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, AND MUCH OF THE NEWS MEDIA IS FOCUSING ON PENNSYLVANIA AND THE ATTEMPT BY TRUMP TO STOP THE OFFICIAL, AND LEGAL VOTE COUNT, I KEEP THINKING: "WHERE WAS THIS CONTROVERSY 4 YEARS AGO?"

THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF AN ARTICLE I WROTE CONCENTRATING ON THE 2012 AND 2016 PENN.ELECTION RESULTS. (BY THE WAY, THE DEMOCRATS NEVER FILED A LAWSUIT IN PENN., NOR ANY OTHER STATE EVEN THOUGH THE RESULTS IN SOME WERE AS  RIDICULOUS AS THIS. INCLUDING FLORIDA)

YOU KNOW THE 2016 ELECTION WHERE DONALD TRUMP WON 30 STATES OR 60%, WHILE LOSING THE POPULAR VOTE WITH 46% OF THE NATIONAL TOTAL. AS I RECALL NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER, OR MEMBER OF THE NEWS MEDIA QUESTIONED THESE RESULTS.

HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM 2012 AND 2016                       
ELECTION RESULTS FOR PRESIDENT.                                      

PENNSYLVANIA- 2012 ELECTION. TOTAL # OF DEMOCRAT\REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,670,708.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,990,274.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES- 2,680,434.

MARGIN OF DEMOCRATIC VICTORY- 309,840 VOTES.

PENNSYLVANIA- 2016 ELECTION.  TOTAL # OF DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,897,174.  UP +226,466 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,926,441 VOTES, LOSS OF 63,833 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES-  2,970,733 VOTES, GAIN OF +290,299 VOTES.


HERE IS A BREAKDOWN:

The TOTAL # OF  DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN VOTES INCREASED +226,466 votes from
2012-2016.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOST 63,833 VOTES BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016, OR ABOUT -2.1%. In itself, that's 
not a drastic decline. It would be considered a result that is well within normal expectations.

HOWEVER, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NUMBERS ARE ANOTHER MATTER. AN INCREASE OF +290,299 VOTES REPRESENTS ABOUT AN + 10.8% INCREASE.

This number, (+290,299), is more than 4 times the number 
of votes that the Democrats lost.

TO ACHIEVE THE TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDED A SCENARIO LIKE THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN:

EVERY SINGLE VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2012, HAD TO DO SO AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434 VOTES.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR EITHER THE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, HAD TO CHOOSE REPUBLICAN: +226,466 VOTES.

THAT TOTAL= 2,906,900 IS STILL SHORT OF THE "OFFICIAL" TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES.

HOW COULD THIS BE? THE REPUBLICANS WERE STILL 63,833 VOTES SHORT OF THE FINAL NUMBER. WELL, GO BACK A FEW PARAGRAPHS AND CHECK OUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES THE DEMOCRATS LOST FROM 2012-2016= -63,833.

TO ACHIEVE A TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, HERE IS RUNDOWN OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED TO HAPPEN:

EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTER FROM 2012, RETURNS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO SELECTS EITHER DEM.\REP. IN 2016, CHOOSES REP.: 226,466.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 63,833 VOTERS THE DEM. PARTY LOST BETWEEN 2012- 2016, RETURNS TO THE POLLS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN.

2,680,434 + 226,466 + 63,833 = 2,970,733.

THIS IS LUDICROUS. NO REASONABLE INDIVIDUAL WHO LOOKS AT THESE NUMBERS COULD TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. 


THIS ELECTION WAS A SHAM. 

DON'T TAKE MY WORD, GO OVER THE RESULTS 
CAREFULLY. 

DEMOCRATS IN PENNSYLVANIA: DON'T BE SCAMMED AGAIN!!!

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION. General Discussion Digest for Wednesday November 4, 2020

 American Philosophical Association (DoNotReply@ConnectedCommunity.org)

To:you Details
American Philosophical Association

General Discussion

Post New Message
 
Nov 4, 2020

Discussions

started 6 days ago, Alex Blum (6 replies)
Short Paper Section   external link to thread view
1. What I have in mind is a site which accepts full... Alex Blum
2. I like the idea. Maybe "Phlash Philosophy", ... Edward Main
3. Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed,... Jacob Andrews
4. Yes. Perhaps something like “To the Point” --... Alex Blum
5. tempting idea but I just tested and copied... Friedrich Grafe
started one year ago, Krim Ballentine (2 replies)
Life split   external link to thread view
6. Etymologically, "atom" meant "undividable" or ... Edward Main


 
top next
1.Re: Short Paper Section
Reply to GroupReply to Sender
Alex Blum
Nov 4, 2020 6:06 AM
Alex Blum

 What I have in mind is a site which accepts full articles which are no longer than say 500 words. The articles could be on any philosophical topic. 



------------------------------
Alex Blum
------------------------------
  Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate  
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-03-2020 10:21
From: Jacob Andrews
Subject: Short Paper Section

I think this is a great idea. Learning to communicate ideas concisely is a great skill. I've been reading through the 1000 Word Philosophy page, and I think reading such short expositions of big topics has already made me a better academic writer.

What kinds of philosophical topics do you think are suitable for this very short format (we can call it "flash philosophy," after "flash fiction"), as opposed to traditional longform journal articles?

------------------------------
Jacob Joseph Andrews
Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School
PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago
https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/



 
topprevious  next
2.Re: Short Paper Section
Reply to GroupReply to Sender
Edward Main
Nov 4, 2020 9:01 AM
Edward Main

I like the idea.  Maybe "Phlash Philosophy", "Philash Philosophy" or even "Philosophlash"?



  Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate  
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11/3/2020 10:22:00 AM
From: Jacob Andrews
Subject: RE: Short Paper Section

I think this is a great idea. Learning to communicate ideas concisely is a great skill. I've been reading through the 1000 Word Philosophy page, and I think reading such short expositions of big topics has already made me a better academic writer.

What kinds of philosophical topics do you think are suitable for this very short format (we can call it "flash philosophy," after "flash fiction"), as opposed to traditional longform journal articles?

------------------------------
Jacob Joseph Andrews
Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School
PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago
https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-29-2020 04:35
From: Alex Blum
Subject: Short Paper Section

I would like to suggest a short paper section, say, for papers of no more than 500 words not counting bibliography. And see how it develops. Many editors will not even consider papers which are less than thousands of words.

 




 
topprevious  next
3.Re: Short Paper Section
Reply to GroupReply to Sender
Jacob Andrews
Nov 4, 2020 11:12 AM
Jacob Andrews
Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed, a blog with looser guidelines, a subset of the APA website, or what?

------------------------------
Jacob Joseph Andrews
Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School
PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago
https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
  Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate  
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-04-2020 09:01
From: Edward Main
Subject: Short Paper Section

I like the idea.  Maybe "Phlash Philosophy", "Philash Philosophy" or even "Philosophlash"?




Original Message:
Sent: 11/3/2020 10:22:00 AM
From: Jacob Andrews
Subject: RE: Short Paper Section

I think this is a great idea. Learning to communicate ideas concisely is a great skill. I've been reading through the 1000 Word Philosophy page, and I think reading such short expositions of big topics has already made me a better academic writer.

What kinds of philosophical topics do you think are suitable for this very short format (we can call it "flash philosophy," after "flash fiction"), as opposed to traditional longform journal articles?

------------------------------
Jacob Joseph Andrews
Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School
PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago
https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/



 
topprevious  next
4.Re: Short Paper Section
Reply to GroupReply to Sender
Alex Blum
Nov 4, 2020 11:26 AM
Alex Blum
Yes. Perhaps something like “To the Point”

  Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate  
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11/4/2020 11:12:00 AM
From: Jacob Andrews
Subject: RE: Short Paper Section

Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed, a blog with looser guidelines, a subset of the APA website, or what?

------------------------------
Jacob Joseph Andrews
Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School
PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago
https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/
------------------------------



 
topprevious  next
5.Re: Short Paper Section
Reply to GroupReply to Sender
Friedrich Grafe
Nov 4, 2020 12:19 PM
Friedrich Grafe

tempting idea

but I just tested and copied one page from a  pdf–file to ms-word, and the word count gave me 583 words for this one page

hence two suggestions concerning  'short' in this context:

  1. allow for up to 1000 words
  2. peer reviewing needed, but should be rather liberal with respect to references and detailedness; a thus short article (e.g. research reporting) may be comprehensible because of its shortness only to the informed reader


------------------------------
Friedrich Grafe
Wendelstein
------------------------------
  Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate  
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-04-2020 06:06
From: Alex Blum
Subject: Short Paper Section

 What I have in mind is a site which accepts full articles which are no longer than say 500 words. The articles could be on any philosophical topic. 



------------------------------
Alex Blum



 
topprevious
6.Re: Life split
Reply to GroupReply to Sender
Edward Main
Nov 4, 2020 9:55 AM
Edward Main

Etymologically, "atom" meant "undividable" or "indivisible" (e.g., to Democritus).   "Splitting the atom" produced the atomic bomb.  The atom had already been "split" into protons, neutrons and electrons, etc.; a nucleus and circling electrons (if that's what they do).  These, in turn, have been further "split" into quarks, although the quarks have differing characteristics (can they be further "split")?  But I digress.

 

I recall Collingwood's distinction between "kicking a bad dog" and "taking a good walk": the "walk" isn't "there" until it's taken.  Similarly, it may be argued (as do the existentialists) that "life" is nothing more than the "living" of it.  But that depends upon the kind of "life" under consideration; there is "life" in the biological sense (body) and "life" in an experiential sense.  We may speak of "living a good life", a value judgment which would not necessarily apply merely to the biological sense (materially, what happens happens); if we value certain biological processes as (for example) more efficiently producing edible food sources, that imposes a value not inherent in the biological process (even an evolutionary principle such as "survival of the fittest" presupposes a value to survival).  

 

Consciousness can be "split" into the brain (material) and the mind (thinking, perhaps - shades of DesCartes!).  It is the experiential, conscious, thinking part that understands the material, biological part (experiences it, is conscious of it and thinks about it), and employs values in doing so.

 

Genesis 2:7 distinguishes the "dust of the ground" (material) from "the breath of life" (respiration is a biological process, which developed prior to the emergence of humankind in time).  I would take "the breath of life" more metaphorically as referring to the emergence of consciousness.  This, I think, is follows from the significance of Genesis 2:5-6.  The earth was just "dust" before a "mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground", which allowed plants and herbs to grow.  In Genesis 2:5, the plants and herbs had not yet started to grow because there was no rain; that was supplied by the "mist" in Genesis 2:6, and allowed "life" in the biological sense to emerge.

 

But other forms of "life" have "consciousness" in varying forms and degrees.  Presumably there were other forms of "life" which did so before humankind emerged with its particular form (or forms) and degree (or degrees) of consciousness.  To my way of thinking, "consciousness" is what a particular form of life (including humankind) makes of it.  A universal, all pervading consciousness would be more of a goal to be achieved in varying degrees, as existing forms of consciousness seek communication and integration with other forms (whether that of particular individuals with shared perspectives or that of different forms seeking to apprehend such a connection).  

 

 



  Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate  
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11/3/2020 10:27:00 AM
From: Jacob Andrews
Subject: RE: Life split

Hi Krim,

Interesting thoughts. You say, "Academicians and scientists attempt to split everything into two parts, the atom." But "the atom" sounds like one part, not two. What two parts do you have in mind?

I'm also curious about your exposition of Genesis 2:7. I read that not as a definition of life, but as a causal explanation of human life: human life is caused by God's spirit, rather than *being* God's spirit. What do you think?

I do think your intimation of the idea of telos or goal-directed existence from Genesis is spot in. Genesis 1-2 are all about organization, hierarchy, and structure: everything God makes, including human beings, is made with a purpose in mind. Because of our rationality, God is able to directly talk to us about our purpose (Genesis 2:15-17), rather than simply make us to perform a purpose. You've identified some really deep stuff in here.


------------------------------
Jacob Joseph Andrews
Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School
PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago
https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/
------------------------------



 
You are subscribed to "General Discussion" as macblazer1981@aol.com. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.