this would be given an F in philosophy class dawg

Probably.

But I'm trying to explain it in terms that plebs can understand so it has to be pretty reductionist.

Also many philosophers who aren't religious reject the concept of a self evident truth. I would say a self evident truth is a thing against which no argument can be brought and for which no justification is needed

This post was edited by TransTankie on Apr 19 2019 02:46am

i'm a member of the aristocracy so you need to step it up

Then I suggest you google 'self evident proposition' and see how that applies to consciousness.

It seems "self evident" to me that this convo went way off the rails about 10-15 posts ago.

I didn't know Democrats believed that violent felons still in prison should be able to vote. Kamala Harris says "she's open to the idea".

Weird stuff. I can understand why Howard Schultz wants to run as a moderate.

i said before, shit like this is absolutely fodder for political attack ads. Its unforced error, it hemorrhages votes and doesn't appeal to anyone except diehard primary voters
its a sign of desperation and democratic infighting pushing the party too radical to win in the general election. If candidates need to stick out their necks like this to win the primary, they're going to lose their necks in the general

That's the conventional wisdom every presidential cycle... but Trump's endless unforced errors didn't stop him from winning. Although he had a personality cult behind him.

Trump's appeals in the primaries opened him to massive blocks of voters in the general election that were hostile to the other candidates. The rise of populism wasn't the rise of a far-right fringe, it was a broad spectrum that captured a significant chunk of the left. I really don't get how you can equate the two, Trump was as RINO as it get without going full blown Jeff Flake, he's a pro-gay pro-choice godless heathen that spent all his life hobnobbing with the likes of Jesse Jackson.
The democrat vs republican primary system showed the difference between open and democratic votes allowed by the RNC and closed, insular and blatantly rigged conventions from the DNC- one faction that was barely republican at all was able to usurp the party's mantle, while the same was completely shut out by the democrats who ran a distilled 195 proof establishment candidate.
and then bam, that populist faction pushed Trump over the edge and won him on the backs of split tickets, defectors and people who wouldn't have shown up otherwise

Democrats will only narrow their appeal if they go for hardcore purists who believe in giving the vote to cannibals on death row. There's no swathe of voters responsive to that. The family/friends of felons in prison? They don't show up to vote

Trump had lots of flaws, yes, but he had considerable upside as well, being the first candidate in a long time running on a platform of pushing back globalization and free trade, taking a hard stance against immigration and putting the focus back on what once made America great (at least in the minds of the voters he was going for).

And, perhaps even more importantly, he was running against Hillary, the most corrupt, unlikable, infamous candidate the Democrats have nominated in decades. She had an abysmal platform, zero charisma, wasnt exciting anyone from the progressive activist base and was intensely loathed by the conservative half of America.

Hillary was indeed the presidential candidate with the 2nd worst favorability ratings in history, ahead only of Trump himself, and just by a small margin.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 23 2019 11:10am