It doesn't matter, none of it matters. Treason, fraud, sexual assault, ... He is immune from any repercussions because of partisan brand identity. The political brain-washing of the masses began a long time ago to consolidate the interests of the ones who are already in power and already possess the wealth. They learned that we're all susceptible to confirmation bias and they used it to bifurcate us into two distinct groups, around a pile of arbitrary "issues". The current criminal in office is arbitrary, the branding is all that matters. God fearing, gun supporting, working class, racists would never vote against their "C"onservative brand and so they will always vehemently support the representative of that brand.

It's concerning that the all pretenses and facades have been torn down because the president is an unsophisticated buffoon who lacks the intellectual capacity for subtlety. But what was revealed behind the facade is not surprising. Just the same power hungry, wealth elite manipulating the uneducated to vote against their own interests...same as it ever was.

God gives people grace in many ways. One of those ways is by communicating His will through the preaching of His word. The hearing of the word imparts faith, which is a gift from God. You're wondering how you believe; when you listen to the word with a good heart God will give you the faith to believe it. He will also confirm His word with supernatural signs and wonders.

I don't know how true your appraisal is of those who have told you about the Lord, but your situation is better than those who have never heard. Plus you have me, newtboy, and I'm sure that makes you feel extremely fortunate. Yet scripture tells us that even if the messenger is bad it doesn't negate your responsibility. Faith and reason are complimentary. I think this quote is true: Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found too difficult and not tried.

I can't speak for the myriad of pretenders but there has only ever been one man who died for your sins. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah that Moses and the prophets wrote about in the Old Testament. There are exact prophecies like the 70 weeks of Daniel which predict the exact date of His death for our sins. I believe what I believe because I have been changed by His grace. That's my only motivation in telling you or anyone about this, because He is real and you can know that for yourself. You can know that by putting even a slight intellectual effort into understanding the problem. You will find that there are good reasons to believe that God is real and good reasons to believe Jesus is who He said He is. I am a flawed vessel but I serve a God who doesn't need me to prove that He is real. He sends me because He is inviting you to seek Him and be saved.

"Intellectual cowardice."

Nope, sorry, it's looking more like they got caught, held off an interview about this topic, ran to remove the most offending videos before they were exposed, then tried to pretend it was their idea by making this video because it's so important to get things right, when reality is they knew they were wrong for years and did nothing until it was going to be exposed elsewhere.
This isn't intellectual honesty at work, it's the opposite, ass covering and self congratulatory back patting.

See the linked video above about why this is just about brand damage control, not honesty or truth.

This kind of intellectual empowerment can become indistinguishable from victim-blaming in certain situations, if not presented with care.

Hm. Maybe. Putting aside for the moment that the original film was nearly perfect and needed no sequels or reboots, Jason Reitman probably will have more respect for the series and won't let it become the soulless Hollywood Reboot-O-Tron disaster that the 2016 version was.

Take the basic concept, do something new with it, and it might turn out to be a good film. Can't say I'm excited or anything though. The Ghostbusters intellectual property by itself isn't anything special.

Seriously, the psychological effect of watching it die surprised me.

Intellectually seems ridiculous to me, but I can't help that I really felt sad watching it happen.

wow.

Sometimes I'm very glad that I live in a country that generally doesn't give a f@$% about US Copyright and Intellectual Property.

Since that is the case, and because I also happen to derive some schadenfreude-esque pleasure from the "Streisand effect", I have decided to download and seed for the foreseeable future the 6GB worth of files for the last version of Stage 9 before the shutdown, including Windows, Linux, and VR variants.

Anyone interested in following suit can use this magnet link, although there is potential for ISP strikes/warnings if you live in the US or other places where they have a less laissez-faire approach to these things than in Thailand (where I live).

Fair use needs protection. When that fails, at least one can assist with unfettered use, even if the powers that be claim that use is illegitimate.

Yeah, pretend to be highly intellectual by using an educated-sounding British person.

Maybe get a thesaurus while you're at it? Or at least learn the difference between things like "adverse" and "abject". Such mistakes show the lack of intellectual rigor here. And don't try to tell me it's on purpose, ALL poverty is inherently adverse, and "abject poverty" is the common phrase (also that's not the only screw up of that type).

WHAT?!?

Conservative principles like honesty, loyalty, honor, fidelity, respect, intellectual curiosity, fiscal responsibility, and being pro environment, pro education, anti war, supportive of law and order, adult......

What conservative principal has Trump not thrown in the toilet and pissed on? I can't think of a single one, can you?
He is where you hang your hat.

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

-- George Orwell

George Orwell didn't know about global warming, or his quote might have been a little different at the end.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

As Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Honestly, it's farcical, if you'd make the slightest attempt to examine both sides with some semblance of intellectual rigor and honesty, there's no contest. Trump and Faux aren't even internally consistent, often they'll say completely different things about the same subject as it suits their needs.

Debunking them, or you, is a waste of time. If you have any interest in finding the truth it's out there, but I can't be bothered trying to force-feed it to people like you.

He's a conservative, so many progressives don't like his positions. Personally, as a progressive moderate, I think he's pretty interesting to listen to, though I disagree with some things he says. He's a rare conservative intellectual, the kind that don't make up bullshit to support their positions.