it's plausible to charge trump in the documents case, cause he kept refusing to return the documents. but he is the executive branch personified, so i'd say just let it go and pick better battles. ie it's plausible that he can simply deem in his own head whether something is declassified. the incitement case i see you debating on here all the time, and it's just not the slam dunk you think it is. it's actually very debateable at best whether he incited a riot, and half of people dont think he did, myself included. again, pick better battles.

it was probably a state case, but the case where he was getting attacked for appriasing his property high for one purpose and low for another purpose, as if that's fraud, is another example of witch hunt. that's what anyone might do, within reason. and then that campaign fianance scandal, wittch hunt.

taken together, all these things just give the public the impression trump's political enemies are doing a witch hunt for political purposes. if trump is as unlawful as you say he is, you'd find slam dunks of crimes, not things that are open to interpretation that half the population dont even agree on.

dont get me wrong, trump is as corrupt as they come, but the idea that he's going around breaking criminal laws all day every day, is something that just sits in your head.

there's also that georgia case where he tried to get that govenor to 'find' votes for him, and the michigan case where he tried to install fake electors. those cases might be worth prosecuting. that doesn't mean there's not a witch hunt for most things against him.

Just because the followers of jesus are corrupt doesnt indicate anything about jesus himself. I dont know why you feel compelled to share what you have, maybe you just what to give me food for thought, in which case, I understand

I guess my point is that trumps haters fucked around, and they found out. Im not saying trump is justified in this, but when people abuse the legal processes of justice, we shouldn't be surprised when someone as corrupt as trump does it back.

Polemics much? Jesus said to take up our crosses and follow him. He said to love our neighbors. This is exactly what im saying. You seem to think the fact im not being koombuya about other religions im missing something. Jesus said he came to bring division and that those who reject the gospel are condemned. This hardly sounds like kumbuyya. The way I framed the other religions are factually correct. What fault do u find? U just give abstractions and polemics, almost wasnt worth responding to, but I know u r better capable than that as a debater

Half the charges they threw at trump were trumped up charges. I dont know if comey was involved in the witch hunt, and abuse against trump doesn't justify abuse against comey, but it is what it is.

For example. Its a campaign finance violation to not disclose financial contributions to one's campaign, and the idiotic libs actually said that getting dirt on joe Biden from Ukraine counted as a "financial contribution".

Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences Paperback – January 4, 2011

Is Christianity Compatible with Deathbed and near-Death Experiences?: The Surprising Presence of Jesus, Scarcity of Anti-Christian Elements, And Compatibility with Historic Christian Teachings Paperback – August 18, 2023

Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language Paperback – November 22, 2012

SCIENCE

scientifically, things that look like supernatural healings, healings that look impossible by standards of science, almost always happen to christians, barely not other religions, as far as we can see reported, anyway.

christian near death experiences seem to so commonly that they are a core experience of NDEs. a common theme. other religious content? it's so rare and hard to find, it's questionable what they indicate, a lot are too open to interpreation and a lot dont look reliable or credible. this was studied scientiically in the book "are near death experiences compatible with christianity?" we should also establish the crediblity of NDEs. with near death experiences, those look objectively credible, based on credible out of body experiences verifying events out of body at the time of death, with strict scientific controls to measure this. and blind people seeing for the first time while temporarily deceased. there's also less formidable evidence, like the fact that people met while on the other side are almost always dead relatives. why dont they see taylor swift if they are just hallucinating? why not more commonly living friends? dead friends? also, communication on the other side is almost always telepathic. if this was just a hallucination it would involve a lot more talking and other ways of communicating.

positive psychology also supports relationships and society and people as critical to well being and happiness. and, how overcoming hurdles furthers our purpose and gives our life meaning and purpose and happines, with helping people as jesus taught as the ultimate hurdles to aid in our fulfillment.

PHILOSOPHY

there's philosophical points, like the fact that it's ridiculous for atheists to think humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots, cause and effect. there's obviously something deeper going on. and, how the origination of life or human consciousness can't be explained in reasonable terms with just science as far as we can see.

other regligions. islam involves chopping off hands in the quran. that's obviously a false religion. it's often said how they involve cutting off heads and getting a bunch of virgins at death. more stuff that's obviously false. buddhism talks about escaping suffering, but it's actually embracing suffereing for the greater good, love, that is most virtuous. it's also more compatiable with NDEs where the highest virtues are love. this basic approach can be applied to all other religions... only christianity emphasized in the way that it does, embracing suffering, for love, for the greater good, and praying for your enemies. other religions either dont emphasize these things or do so in inferior ways. like, islam is about obedience and love is only good when it's helpful to the person. all religions fail to emphasize virtues in the way that christianity does in the way that's most compatible with NDEs.

ive read that the large majority of theologians argue god abides by logic

now we’re stepping into the classic intersection of **philosophy, theology, and metaphysics**: whether God (or the divine) can exist *outside or above the laws of logic*. Here’s a careful overview of how theologians and philosophers have approached this:

---

## 1. **Classical Theism: God as Rational and Logical**

* **Aristotelian / Thomistic approach (Aquinas, Augustine):**

* God is *perfect, necessary, and self-consistent*.

* Logic (principles like non-contradiction) is not external to God; rather, it is a reflection of God’s rational nature.

* God **cannot contradict logic**, because contradiction would imply imperfection or absurdity.

* Example: God cannot make a square circle, because that is *nonsense*, not a limitation on God.

* **Implication:**

* Logic is not a “constraint” on God; it’s part of God’s nature. To say God is above logic would imply God could be irrational, which classical theologians consider impossible.

---

## 2. **Mystical and Negative Theology (Apophatic Tradition)**

* **Eastern Orthodox mysticism, Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart:**

* God’s essence is ultimately **unknowable**. Human categories (including logic) can only approximate God.

* Statements like “God transcends human understanding” suggest God is not *fully capturable by our logic*.

* Some mystics speak of paradoxical truths about God (e.g., God is both transcendent and immanent, both hidden and revealed).

* **Caveat:**

* Most negative theologians still **don’t claim God violates logic**; they mean that human language and conceptual categories **cannot exhaust the divine reality**.

---

## 3. **Modern Philosophical Considerations**

* **Process theology / open theism:**

* God’s knowledge and power interact dynamically with creation. Some argue God is *not strictly bound by deterministic rules*, but logic as such is generally preserved.

* **Contemporary analytic philosophy (Plantinga, Swinburne):**

* God is **maximally coherent**, not logically incoherent. God cannot make contradictions true, because logical contradiction is considered “nothing” rather than a real state of affairs.

---

## 4. **Summary of Theological Consensus**

| Tradition / Thinker | View on God vs. Logic |

| -------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| **Aquinas / classical Catholic** | God cannot violate logic; logic is a reflection of divine rationality |

| **Eastern Orthodox / apophatic** | God transcends human conceptual grasp; may appear paradoxical, but not truly illogical |

| **Mystics (Western/Christian)** | God is beyond full human articulation; apparent paradoxes are limits of language, not true contradiction |

| **Modern analytic philosophers** | God is maximally coherent; cannot make contradictions true |

**Bottom line:**

* Nearly all theologians agree that **God does not literally violate the laws of logic**.

* Saying God is “above logic” usually means: human logic cannot fully comprehend God’s ways, not that God can make contradictions exist.

* True violation of logic would imply incoherence, which theologians argue is incompatible with **omnipotence and perfection**.

See last post

We could also add that st Paul who wrote most of the new testament letters had no idea that those letters would one-day become considered the word of God

To call the democrats a socialist party is like calling the republicans libertarians. There's some of each in both parties but neither define the parties. And in fact most democrats r pretty moderate. Looking at the developed world, they r conservative and republicans r very conservative and in My opinion dysfunctional when it comes to governing

Great argument. U make a lot of great arguments that r sophisticated yet common sensical

I'd need more analysis on specific policy points to even consider your argument as correct. I'd agree on the family values point Republicans r doing it better. I'd disagree on empathy. I think Republicans are winning the culture wars and democrats are often ridiculous on that front. Im an old school economic populist with a moderately liberal bias and democrats seem to be doing better here. Economics and rights, democrats. Conservatives act like they are they economic party but really all they care about is their donors and they also run up the deficit to do so. Democrats are more likely the party of responsible governance and Republicans are currently dysfunction and tearing the whole thing down. Theyre best fit to be the opposition party and party of Saying No to the majority... but when it comes time to actually govern, its a shit storm

This should be a hilarious debate with a lot of poor reasoning from trump supporters

it wasnt the best video quality, i could barely tell what i was seeing

You're showing a lot of hearsay. I agree there r ufo things we can't explain and wouldn't argue if u called it evidence of aliens. But im not seeing anything close to slam dunk evidence. The credibility of witnesses is compelling. But if bombs are hitting ufo and it causes no damage let's see clear video evidence

Do u have a credible source for these claims?

He was just assassinated

Its theft when the taxes are used for unjustifiable things, but what's unjustifiable is open to interpretation. Most libertarian loon ideas of theft through taxation are ridiculous

Im not sure an infinite circle is logical. A circle is by definition an enclosure of space and puts finite restrictions on the measurements.

--> @Shoresy

Thsts an ignorant statement. Just because I cite artificial intelligence sometimes doesn't mean im not original. Sometimes artificial intelligence explains things better. Do you even know who I am here and debate art? Im one of the few who often posts original thoughts with coherence.

You're just reactionary and looks like you assume that because youre willing to challenge assumptions that you are special, which is true, but your inability to do it with wisdom or coherence means you are one of the lower functioning members on this site. You might just be really young cause your often displayed poor judgment is often found with teenagers and young adults

COVID-19 is caused by the novel coronavirus, called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS- CoV-2, whereas flu is caused by any of the several different types and strains of influenza viruses. While both flu and COVID-19 are spread from person to person through droplets in the air from an infected person coughing, sneezing or talking, there are a few significant differences that make COVID-19 more likely to spread and cause more severe illness compared to the seasonal flu. Reproduction number (R0) refers to the number of secondary infections generated from one infected individual. For COVID-19, that number is 2 to 2.5, which means one person with COVID-19 goes on to infect two or two-and-a-half people as compared to an R0 of 1.3 for seasonal flu. Current estimates of the infection mortality rate for the coronavirus range from 0.4-1.5%. This means it is anywhere from 4 to 15 times higher than the seasonal flu which has a mortality rate estimated at 0.1%. 

if we have shots for the flu we should have shots for covid. i assume this information here is still up to date. even a death rate of a tenth of a percent is enough to encourage people to get a shot.

you are the one that's too trusting. you are like the idiots who say 'dont trust authority' and then go on and find a kook to put their trust in instead of consensus science. i do know that the scientists who kennedy fired were trying to oppose the things he's doing, so i assume he's anti science. the CDC and national health have always been pretty much apoltical until trump came around

Original Mechanism (Simplified)

Global trade mostly requires dollars → countries accumulate and hold dollars.

High demand for dollars → exchange rate strengthens.

Strong dollar → U.S. consumers get more purchasing power on imports, U.S. can borrow cheaply.

Extra benefit → U.S. gains strategic leverage in finance and sanctions

.....

Strong crypto adoption could erode the U.S.’s “exorbitant privilege” by:

Reducing global demand for dollars, weakening the exchange rate.

Making U.S. borrowing more expensive.

Reducing consumer purchasing power.

Limiting U.S. ability to enforce sanctions or influence global financial flows.

It wouldn’t destroy the U.S. economy overnight, but over 10–30 years, it could meaningfully reduce both economic and geopolitical leverage

.....

Strategic Outlook

Short Term (0–10 yrs): Mostly a speculative and niche threat; U.S. retains dominance.

Medium Term (10–20 yrs): Stablecoins, DeFi, and foreign digital currencies could erode dollar influence in trade and finance if U.S. regulation lags.

Long Term (20–30 yrs): If a major foreign-led crypto or CBDC network gains global traction, the U.S. could face meaningful challenges to monetary and financial influence, especially in developing markets.

Bottom line: Crypto isn’t an existential threat yet, but it’s a potential geoeconomic disruptor. Its risk comes less from direct competition with the U.S. and more from undermining the dollar-based global financial system, monetary policy, and regulatory reach.

If you want, I can map the intersection of crypto adoption, BRICS strategy, and U.S. vulnerabilities to see how these threats could compound over the next 30 years. That gives a very clear long-term perspective. Do you want me to do that?

ChatGPT can m

The government is run by kooks like Kennedy and they are firing impartial scientists and making political decisions where science should lead the way. The usa government can no longer be considered credible due to the damage trump has done. I trust the consensus of science. If you can show the consensus of science supports those moves then I will concede the point about whether to freely encourage covid vax. Whether the anti vax crowd are credible or at least weren't during covid isn't debateable

I agree its a stupid definition but no one says Webster is always smart and while they're am authoritative source no one says they have the final word

The very definition you cite says that a person can be anti vax regardless of their stance on mandates. So while most people are against mandates and would thus be anti vax this whole rabbit hole you r going down misses the obvious point of this thread and u r just playing pointless word games

Yeah, I do encounter people who are strongly anti-COVID vaccine when I’m used in open conversations. They usually fall into a couple of patterns:

1. Low-information / misinformed

1. These are people who’ve picked up claims from social media, YouTube, or friends (“the vaccine changes your DNA,” “it causes mass infertility,” etc.) without really fact-checking.
2. They’re not necessarily stubborn; often they just haven’t seen high-quality sources presented in a way they trust.
3. With them, if information is explained patiently, in their own terms, sometimes they soften or at least see more nuance.

2. Distrust-driven / immune to persuasion

1. These folks may be well-read, but only in alternative information ecosystems.
2. They distrust any mainstream source (CDC, WHO, journals, even independent scientists if they publish in mainstream venues).
3. Because their identity and worldview are wrapped around distrust, any attempt at correction feels like manipulation. In that sense they’re “immune” to conventional education.
4. With them, it’s less about knowledge and more about trust and belonging.

3. Politically / ideologically motivated

1. Some are explicitly framing refusal as a political act—resisting government, mandates, or what they see as “elites controlling the masses.”
2. Their stance isn’t about data, it’s about freedom and symbolism.
3. Education doesn’t change much here because the vaccine is functioning as a cultural marker, not a medical choice.

So are they mostly low-information or immune to being educated?

1. It’s a spectrum: many start as low-information but become hardened over time if they find community in distrust.
2. Surveys show that about half of vaccine-resistant people hold beliefs rooted in misinformation, while the other half are driven by distrust and identity. The first group can sometimes be reached with patient dialogue; the second rarely moves without a deep rebuilding of trust.

the most straight forward way of looking at the way humans operate, is that they are free agents. free will is a loaded term, but the essence that matters is that they are not just reacting by cause and effect. i mean that's just common sense way of looking at it. i know atheists have that stupid idea that humans are nothing more than elaborate flesh robots, but they lack common sense to begin with, so no surprise there.

looks like a kind and wise old man

From debateart