iNow

Those other people aren’t in charge of the Justice Department (which is charged with enforcing the rules against doing those things). It’s a who watches the watchers situation. Congress watches the President. The voters watch the congress. The Russian (and Saudi and Chinese and Iranian and...) trolls watch the voters.

I’m sorry now I mentioned cars at all

It’s a bit like forcing someone to purchase the car before allowing them to take a test drive.

Who the hell knows. We’re in uncharted territories and the senate majority leader is breaking every precedent he can.

One of the ideas I intended to convey is how in every single court case ever, including past impeachments, the evidence and witnesses are brought in first then the positions argue and introduce the evidence and witnesses as they do. Here, however, the ask is to conclude the arguments completely and only then consider MAYBE having evidence and witnesses allowed... when they’re done. It’s bass ackwards. It’s not how the Clinton impeachment went. It’s not how any impeachment went. It’s not how any trial in our courts has went. Just hopeful that Senators really were better than the letter in front of their name. In the House? Sure. They’re a bunch of rubes and yokels, but the Senate? They’re supposed to be statesmen. There’s no such thing as false hope. There is only hope. One kind.

In the Clinton case, he didn’t prevent all witnesses from testifying in the House. He provided documents that were subpoenaed. That evidence was allowed into the Senate record before the trial began and they agreed to allow more witnesses in Senate also before the trial began. But sure, other than that it was pretty much EXACTLY the same. Lol

Well, this all but renders it final: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates-senate-rejects-democrats/story?id=68410003 So much for country over party. They MAY allow a vote to POTENTIALLY allow witnesses and documents AFTER both sides have argued their cases (basically, the exact opposite of every other court case ever)

Senate trial starts today. Past 3-4 weeks we’ve been in a holding pattern waiting on the House to send the articles over to the Senate, for the Senate to align on their rules, and whether or not witnesses will be allowed. Thursday they swore in the Chief Justice who in turn swore in the Senators, this was a holiday weekend, and it wasn’t until last night that McConnell released anything whatsoever about the rules. Nothing has been happening. Perhaps we first consider the lack of change or new information in the story as a more accurate reason for the lack of comments here before assuming we’ve all become apathetic due to gaslighting.

It’s just a lazy version of trolling

Probably, The Tell-Tale Heart... or, Hickory Dickery Dock when they’re tired.

No, not really since the core point is that it’s context dependent and not objectively inherently true

It may be easier to understand your point if one thinks about trying to survive in a resource constrained environment. Increased strength required increased calories. When food is scarce, that’ll lead to increased suffering and increased starvation. There are other similar examples, but Zaps point remains. The target Raider is setting is arbitrary and context/situation dependent. It is not objectively better as is being suggested.

Another recent study suggested losing even a few hours of sleep within a single night led to increased beta amyloid protein, a key contributor in dementia risk. Parents of young children everywhere are losing their minds. https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2020/01/07/WNL.0000000000008866

My questioning of assertions and suspicion of source data underlying those assertions doesn’t magically shift the burden of proof on to me. Even if for the sake of discussion we assume the number is valid, the easy explanation is that atheism as a label wasn’t really used back then. It only came into prominence within the last decade or two. Prior, most called themselves non-practicing, or deistic, or more believers of Spinoza’s god of nature, for example. Regardless, I do find the claim far too questionable to take seriously or hypothesize about reasons. YMMV

Nonsense.