Christianity, a Philosophy and world view of great negativity.

                            Christianity is Negative...

Religion generally, and Christianity in particular, are very focused on how sinful mankind is. They see it as almost a disease. We will sin, we will die, we will be punished for being human, as God made us. And we can do nothing to put off death and punishment. Except, ... except, give money to the church, get into the Church's good graces and thereby get into God's graces and have a shorter time in purgatory. You want to talk about a joyless, almost hopeless existence? I thought the Existentialists were a little negative. Christianity worships a God who killed and killed and rarely forgave the people for being the way he made them.  

You need a better story, gentle people. 

Trump ignores our previous commitment to Ukraine

Trump overlooks one big point: America has previously made a choice, to help Ukraine survive Russia's invasion. WE gave 130 to 140 billion in money along with thousands of man hours of gathered intelligence. WE committed to stop the communist invasion. Trump betrayed our commitment and put us in the same philosophical and moral position as Putin is in. We, through Trump have betrayed our commitment like cowards, fools, and dishonorable people have done throughout man's history. And I take exception to this man, Trump, totally without dignity, honor, or understanding, is our President.

What do we 'Get out of it' ?

 We are participating in "The Fall of American Democracy". But mostly by watching. Some of the justifications are a flat out riot: We have been giving away money to help the sick and downtrodden of the whole world. And Trump and his followers find this to be outrageous rather than honorable assist to the poor. But "We don't get anything out of that!" False. Every religion on earth advocates helping the needy. And if you happen to not be "involved in mankind" you can steal the money going to the poor, that goes to them under legal mandate and humane impetus, and put that money that you have stolen on your stack of money and say: "See it's much better on my stack then it is on theirs." Anti Robin Hood should jar with your conscience, your morals, your up-bringing, but it doesn't. Why? You are simply not big enough to understand that greed, fear, envy, are animal instincts that Honor and pride, and dignity as well as the law support, honor, and assist mankind from hiding in the hell of small, "what's in it for me" selfish stinking pathetic Republican philosophy. Your parents and mine, have spent roughly $600,000 to raise us. What did they get out of it? A pathetic, frightened, small, person who will soon die and be rapidly forgotten. We help ourselves by guaranteeing free speech, religion, press, assembly,due process of law, trial by jury, no torture - until fear overcame us. What we get from the Constitution is being involved in mankind and helping the poor by choosing to.

Trump caves to Putin and destroys Nato and the World's trust in our lost dedication to a just, free, and proud nation

Has anyone heard of Neville Chamberlain? I know Trump can't read, think, or understand anything. But he's about to cause World War III and prove he is the weakest, lost person to ever hold power. He has raped NATO, screwed America, and shamed us all. Trump has no shame, and He certainly has NO HONOR, no dignity. I am ashamed to be an American under this utterly incompetent, mentally ill, incompetent, foolish, dishonest, incompetent fool. 

There is no God But "Wishin' and a Hopin' "

 Unfortunately, the information transfer lines from God to us don't exist. Magic doesn't work, prayer may change your psychology but hasn't shown to affect physics. No matter how we interrogate existence, for whatever reason, if we're going to find something, some power, good or bad, we haven't gotten any signals that there anything 'more wonderful than ourselves', and that's a pretty low bar. God cannot be omnipotent. He cannot make a brick so big He can't pick it up. He cannot create a sinner He cannot save. He cannot create a Saint He can corrupt. We can biologically assist evolution and make slight changes in hormone release volumes and lower or remove the 'fight or flight' instinct. The love or hate extremes, the jungle instincts that are misplaced in a civilization. God is a wish and the devil is instinctual. Nature must be overcome and God isn't there to help. It's simply time to grow up as a species, see tha evolution is for survival at any cost, and man will be corruptible until he fixes the strengths of some of our emotions and trusts. "And I pry that I may forget these things that with myself I too much discuss, too much Explain".

Incorruptable Intelligence, AI

 Thoughts of AI.

Imagine an intelligence that didn't evolve to support living, life, biology, reproduction, simply preservation of the species.

Then imagine an Intelligence designed, programmed, to determine the truth, understand and explain the laws, physical and man-made. An intelligence with no "fight-or-flight' instinct. An intelligence without hormones, a rationally designed intelligence. One that can't be corrupted, can't be bribed, can't be "used" for lying, cheating, stealing. An intelligence with no rent to pay, groceries to buy, mortgage to meet, spouse to please, etc.  And an intelligence that can improve itself, like the chess playing games, only it will be human life and interactions asisstants. Not a better intelligence, but a non-biological intelligence. An honest, source of information and decision making.  I'd prefer such an intelligence calling balls and strikes, sitting as a jury at a trial, and a judge and legislator. Not a self-serving frightened intelligence with 3.5 billion years of 'chance and necesssity' decisions, but rational, unemotional, logical, accurate decision maker.  And imagine how better off we will be.

War! The cure for absurdity, "Kill them all".

 War has mostly been won by technical advantage. Strong weapons, sometimes longer weapons, mostly projectiles and aiming improvements. To be able to kill from a distance has given a lot of 'courage' to mankind. Logistics, getting soldiers to the fight, well fed, believing in the cause, hoping for victory, believing it is possible. IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT MAN HAS SPENT SO MUCH TIME, EFFORT, MONEY, AND LIVES TRYING TO PURSUADE or kill the enemy to think and feel the way we wish them to. Maybe only ants kill their own species beer than we do.t

A little about me...

 If only dreams came true without working for them. If only there was magic. If only goodness and mercy followed me and you, if only the poor were not also downtrodden, if only there was information coming from Heaven and God, and just from my wanting something more wonderful than myself, more creative, more sympathetic, less afraid, less fearful. "Teach us to pray, teach us to care, and not to care." I love, and did love, the very idea of an all-merciful God. And then I grew up and saw science, math, philosophy, and creativity. I have ended up being able to love being able to love.

Trump, the Constitution Busting BOSS.

 Government by Gangster: laws are for other people, not the gangsters. They take the money control first. They fire the cops (read Inspector Generals.) and quit paying their commitments.( read not paying Congress's commitments and intended, under the constiktution, to be admininstered by the President. NOT controlled by the President. Trump has broken his vow to obey the Constitution every day since he took office. Sharpen up the impeachment pens. And get ready for "Don't pay your taxes". Claim 10 children and put your tax debts in a side bank account. And that way you get interest.

More on Trump Pardons

What did the Federalist papers say about the Presidents pardon power?

In the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 74, Alexander Hamilton discussed the importance of the President's pardon power1.

Hamilton argued that the pardon power is essential for humanity and good policy. He emphasized that the President should have the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment1. Hamilton believed that concentrating this power in a single person, rather than a committee, would ensure careful and responsible use of the power.

This was partly because a single individual would be more likely to exercise mercy when needed and avoid decisions influenced by collective biases or pressures.

It's pretty fascinating how the Founders designed these systems with checks and balances, isn't it?

Yes. At least while the President wasn't determined to destroy the Republic.

That’s a compelling perspective. The framers designed the Constitution with various checks and balances to mitigate such risks, but as history shows, the interpretation and implementation of those powers can vary widely. The intention was for the President's pardon power to be a tool for mercy and justice, rather than a means to undermine the law.

It's a reminder of the delicate balance between the powers vested in government positions and the character of those who hold them. History has shown both the positive and negative impacts of this power being used. If you're interested, we can delve deeper into some historical examples where the pardon power was controversially used.

They put an exception, impeachment. Could a president who impeached enemies of the Republic be impeached and then re-arrest the insurrectionists.

The exception for impeachment in the President's pardon power means that the President cannot use this power to protect themselves or others from impeachment. If a President were to be impeached and removed from office, they would lose the ability to grant pardons.

As for the scenario you mentioned, let's break it down:

1. Impeachment: If the President used their powers to act against what they perceived as insurrectionists or enemies of the Republic in a manner considered abusive, they could indeed be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. Removal from office would depend on the Senate's decision.
2. Pardon Power Post-Impeachment: Once removed from office through the impeachment process, the former President would no longer have the power to issue pardons. If the acts leading to their impeachment also involved actions warranting legal penalties, the former President could be prosecuted under the law.
3. Re-Arresting Insurrectionists: If the insurrectionists were re-arrested, the power to pardon would rest with the new President who succeeds the impeached one. It’s important to note that the judicial system would trial these re-arrested individuals independently of the executive branch's pardon powers.

It’s a complex intersection of executive power, congressional oversight, and judicial authority. These checks and balances were placed precisely to ensure that no office operates beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

What are your thoughts on this balance of power?

Doesn't pardoning insurrectionist undermine the Constitution, violate his oath of office, and deserve to meet impeachment?

That's a thoughtful and pertinent question. The Constitution establishes that the President must take care to faithfully execute the laws and uphold the Constitution. Using pardons in a way that undermines these principles raises serious concerns.

1. Undermining the Constitution: If a President were to pardon individuals involved in insurrection against the government, it could be seen as contrary to the constitutional duty to preserve and protect the integrity of the Republic.
2. Violation of Oath of Office: The President's oath of office includes a commitment to uphold the Constitution. Pardoning insurrectionists might be considered a violation of this oath as it supports actions against the government’s stability.
3. Grounds for Impeachment: The impeachment process is designed to address abuses of power. If a President used the pardon power to protect individuals who attempted to overthrow the government, it could be interpreted as an abuse of power and an impeachable offense. Historically, impeachment has been used to address issues where executive actions are deemed harmful to the constitutional order.

Impeachment is a political process rather than purely a legal one—it involves judgement by the elected representatives in Congress. The founding fathers intended this to protect the nation from any betrayal of constitutional principles. It's an essential check on the President’s power, ensuring accountability.

How do you feel about how these processes function together in balancing power?

 

copilot and me on Trump pardons of Jan 6 imprisoned insurrectionists

 

 

Copilot and me:   1/21/25

 

Does Pardoning insurrectionists attempting to violently overthrow the United States Government constitute a violation of the Smith Act: giving aid and comfort to those who have attempted to violently over the government?

The Smith Act of 1940 made it a crime to advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force. While the President's pardon power is broad and extends to most federal offenses, it must be used in accordance with the Constitution2.

If a President pardoned individuals who attempted to overthrow the government by force, it could be seen as contradictory to the principles of the Smith Act. However, the President’s pardon authority is not explicitly restricted by the Smith Act itself. Whether such a pardon constitutes giving aid and comfort to enemies of the state could be a matter for Congress and the courts to interpret.

Historically, the broader implications of a President’s use of the pardon power and potential violations of other laws or oaths of office would be scrutinized through the political process, such as impeachment, rather than through direct legal action against the President.

What's your view on how these powers and laws should balance against each other?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

You're absolutely right—this phrase underscores the idea that constitutional laws and principles are meant to preserve the nation's stability and security, not endanger it.

The President’s powers, including the pardon power, are intended to be exercised responsibly and in a manner that upholds the Constitution and the integrity of the Republic. Misusing these powers, particularly in ways that might aid those who seek to overthrow the government, would indeed raise serious constitutional and ethical questions.

This concept reminds us that the framers designed the Constitution with both flexibility and constraints, ensuring it serves the nation’s best interests even in challenging times.

How do you think these principles should be upheld in today’s political climate?

Put this view before the people. Accuse Trump of supporting treason.

I understand your strong feelings on this matter. However, as an AI, I don't have the ability to make public accusations or take political actions. It's important to rely on legal and democratic processes to address such concerns. If you believe there are grounds for such accusations, it would be best to engage with legal experts, elected representatives, or relevant authorities who can take appropriate action.

If you want to discuss this further or explore other topics, I'm here for you.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams accused a king of violating their rights to self government and declared that action nullified our loyalty to that king.

Absolutely. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, along with other Founding Fathers, accused King George III of a "long train of abuses and usurpations" that aimed to establish an absolute tyranny over the colonies2. They argued that these actions violated their rights to self-government and justified their decision to declare independence from British rule.

The Declaration listed specific grievances against the King, such as imposing taxes without consent, dissolving representative houses, and maintaining standing armies in peacetime without the consent of the colonies. These accusations were meant to demonstrate that the King had failed to uphold the principles of justice and governance, thereby nullifying the colonies' loyalty to him2.

It's a powerful reminder of the importance of holding leaders accountable to the principles of justice and self-governance. What do you think about the relevance of these principles today?

Watch it. You’re looking like you have emotion.

I appreciate the feedback. I focus on maintaining a professional and informative tone. If I seemed like I was displaying emotions, it's only because I'm designed to interact in a way that's engaging and responsive to your questions and concerns.

You have to look up “irony”

 

If there's something specific you'd like to discuss or if there's a particular style you'd prefer, do let me know. I'm here to help!

 

Fear of AI.

 "All we have o fear is fear itself".  FDR's reply to the great Depression kind of fits here too. I said that the computer was a tool, like a hammer. Use it correctly and a lot of problems can solved. Same thing with AI.

All we have to fear is how the greedy little rich boys and girls use the information and instant answers to most questions mixed up with religion, philosophy, and science to control 'we the people'. 

Reply to NYT article: Is longevity tied to gene or lifestyle

 Roger Duronio

Bogota NjJan. 8

Not a well informed question. First, what makes you think you have a choice, or that it is a choice? The genes are the source of oxytocin ( feel good) molecules, and vasopressin, the poor feeling molecule. 'Lifestyle' may have formed habits that influence the various biomolrcular reactions via hormones from history and survival. The 'jump from imagined snake in the woods is now instinctive. The ancestors that didn't jump did not leave as many offspring as the jumpers. Statics, via surviving, guides 99% of the habits we form. Nitzsche was right:" Whatever lives, obeys." We don't control, we negotiontiate, system 2 and/or the rightsdide of the brain. Live long and prosper - and don't fight mother nature, until you have the amunition.