JamesHackerMP

Right, but they called Bill Slick Willie not for nothing. The investigation was ramped up with Monicagate. I have to admit, though, that Trump likely won't go to prison. How many Democrats are state governors? Anyone prominent?

Actually, the impeachment-ready investigations didn't come out until 1998 if I remember correctly.

There's no certainty of Trump going to prison, B.M. But yes, they need someone with a bit of charisma, too. That wouldn't hurt.

Well, there are some states in which I don't see them voting for anybody but Trump; conversely, there are other states where I don't see them voting for Trump at all. CA comes to mind in the latter, some southern states in the former.

Provided, also that the Democrats nominate someone who's not far enough left to be in Stalin's backyard, any thoughts on what the result of the next election will be? I found, for Android tablets, an electoral college calculator and I've been playing around with it. According to what the "state profiles" say about the states, I've got 140 for Trump (or another Republican) and 184 for the Democrats, based on past elections. But I've left Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Virginia and some others blank. Any thoughts? I know maybe that is getting slightly off topic, but I'm curious to see predictions for 2020.

God certainly deserves his share of the blame. Like I said, he knew the outcome. Why? Because as you pointed out, he created man to sin just like that. It was his choice to create a species (probably many species) with the ability to sin. He wanted Adam and Eve to grab the fruit (or the key to the liquor cabinet as I put it). You wrote above of God's rather harsh treatment of his own son. I thought the Christians believed that it's a trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the same thing). So really, God, if he made himself incarnate on Earth, was really allowing his body a sort of passive aggressive suicide, right? Then again, there was that rather curious incident from the OT where he tells Abraham to sacrifice his own son and then pulls Abraham's hand back at the last minute, oh, just kidding, I just wanted to see if you would do it.

Have to disagree about wanting to see Mike Pence give it a go. The man supports conversion therapy for heaven's sake. My state's Republican governor just signed a bill into law banning it. It's up to the Democrats now whether Trump is in office in 2021-5. If they nominate Hillary again, or someone equally adept at losing elections, Trump's presidency will end in 2025, not 2021. Also, it's unlikely that the sitting president will be dumped by the party. A faction of the Democratic Party tried the same thing, unsuccessfully, in 1980-- to replace Jimmy Carter with Ted Kennedy, as a matter of fact. So I'm more concentrating on who the Dems have to put up. If they have anyone at all. It cannot be someone in Washington. They need to pick a safely-moderate governor from somewhere. Any thoughts on who THAT Might be?

I think that's a little paranoid, Altai. However, I agree that isn't so much "peace keeping" we're interested in, it's keeping situations contained so they don't spill over into neighboring countries that might be allies. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, the US (I can't speak for Canada), a western nation, has helped out in humanitarian situations before. We aren't interested in stealing resources during peace keeping activities. I'd like to see you explain what we have "stolen" during peace keeping activities. I don't mean wars like Afghanistan or Iraq, by the way.

Thank you that's quite flattering. I didn't mean to say that man has some kind of 'moral instinct', simply the capability to have one, and, just the same, the capability to act immorally. There really isn't a 'moral instinct' at all, just a survival instinct. But of course, we're talking religion here not science, right? The religious view is that man has the capability to sin or to refrain from doing so. As for God's neglect, I think I said above that Man tends to learn things the hard way. They weren't murdered by neglect in the bible, after all, they went on to sire three sons. (Somehow these three sons were the fathers of the rest of humanity, despite a lack of genetic material, but then again we're talking about religous traditions/myths, here.) It was Cain who was sentenced to wander eternally. Adam and Eve were sentenced to till the soil and eat bread. Not a terrible fate, lots of people these days till the soil and eat bread, and have for thousands of years. J.W. blood transfusion trials? Does JW stand for Jehovah's Witnesses?

Isn't this the second thread you have posted just like this? First of all, God--if he's a supreme, omniscient and omnipotent being--already knew the outcome. He knew exactly what he was doing by planting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right smack-dab in the middle of the garden and told Adam and Eve never to touch it. Think of God as a couple of parents who are about to take a weekend trip, leaving their two teenage children to have the house for themselves. They drop a couple of $20's on the kitchen table so they can order a few pizzas. There is a liquor cabinet mom and dad don't want the kids to get into. Father warns the two teenagers that it would be very naughty of them to get into it and says quite sternly, "no parties or alcohol while we're gone." And since he trusts them he leaves the key to said liquor cabinet, smack dab in plain view. Any idiot, especially people who have young adult children, knows the result: before the car pulls out of the driveway, brother and sister call their friends (who call all of their friends), order a few pizzas, the liquor cabinet is opened, and a wild party ensues. Father shouldn't at all be surprised when he and Mother get home and the place is a train wreck. Do you really think God actually trusted Adam and Eve? Do you think he was actually surprised when they ate from the tree he specifically told them not to eat from? Father did it on purpose. He gave them the key to the liquor cabinet deliberately, because he knew exactly what they were going to do with it. Man was already created exactly like that, to sin. You can't fall when you're already there. God had already given them a moral sense, they already possessed the ability to sin. I fail to see how you can boil it down to one or the other. I know you gave us a choice between one or the other, but I've never quite believed that Adam and Eve didn't know what they were doing. So there was no "fall", by God or by Man. Original Murder, on the other hand: I think you need to develop that point a bit more before I can comment on it. Man sometimes has to learn the hard way--like getting expelled from Eden because He/She fucked up.

LOL. What resources are those?

Actually, I might add: the preferred classes of shares typically do not hold ownership value (votes). THese class B private shares that control most of Alphabet, Inc. are not preferred stock, they're more like common stock (ownership of the company in common, hence the name). But they're kept from the public. It sounds like Alphabet's executives are trying to have their financial cake and eat it too.

"Canadian peso" LOL. (It would certainly solve the matter of whether to remove MacDonald from whichever note he's on now, right?) Still, would any Canadian province ever consent to join the United States? Even if the U.S. allowed that province (or new state) to keep its parliamentary model of government for itself? I don't remember if I mentioned this, but I read a book where the US brought Canada into the fold. Quebec had seceded, there was a massive energy crisis and other factors encouraged the other nine provinces to join once the Rep. of Quebec was established. But I doubt, if Canada were physically split up, that would happen. After all, Pakistan, if you remember correctly, was in two pieces for a while (what is called Bangladesh was originally East Pakistan).

Whether I am thinking optimistically or not, I very much doubt Donald Trump will be re-elected president in 2020. He has a core following, a strong following, to be sure, but despite that he failed to get a majority (or even a plurality for that matter) of popular votes in 2016. Provided the Democrats don't do something totally stupid--such as re-nominate Hillary for a re-match--he could very well lose his job on January 20, 2021. Who do you think will replace him? If he is persuaded for whatever reason not to run again, what Republican would run in his place? And who might the Democrats nominate in 2020 to run against Trump (or his replacement on the ballot)? I do not think it too early to ponder the matter.

I had started this thread a long time ago, and I'm sorry if I abandoned it somewhat prematurely. What's Meech? I wanted to ask about that. The U.S. president combines the two roles; it is legislative power, however that we deny him. Not a perfect way of doing things--no constitution has ever worked perfectly at all times--but it's worked well enough for 200+ years that after 27 amendments to the constitution, none of them have changed the basic framework of legislative-executive separation of powers.

Pretty unethical and shareholder un-friendly if you ask me.

A gigantic corporate scam that probably wasn't even approved by shareholders. I don't mind keeping the founders rich, whatever that's capitalism; but this is a dilution of the control of the owners of the corporation by other owners (insiders or control persons). What a bunch of twats. If they own all these B-shares which control the company for real, it's not even really a publicly traded company at all, is it?

It seems that Alphabet, Inc. (the parent company of Google, iow) has two different types of stock floating on the NASDAQ, at approximately the same share price. It used to be just GOOG but now there is GOOGL. Anyone have any clue what the difference between the two is? I'm confused.

Puerto Rico speaks Spanish. Statehood would require either imposing English on them as a national language, or accepting Spanish as a second language for all federal communication. Either option is unacceptable to somebody. So no way we would integrate Canada into the Union. You're pretty safe from us now, territorially-speaking.

How would you go about stopping fake news? Who would have the power to decide whether it's fake or not?

All you have to do is listen to some of the titles. There's one called Jizz in my Pants. Enough said.

Wasn't this post originally about dying with dignity? Hence the question, what is dignity?

Well, I admit that; but I was trying to keep with the original poster's inadequate picture. Probably a mistake, since you seemed to have missed that that is exactly what I am saying. Betsy, the entire political system has managed to dumb itself down to my team/your team. This behavior you cited is a good example of it. There are of course, other good examples of it, some that take place among members of what you call "the right".

No, why? Have you considered it might have something to do with other factors than the use of juries? There are different types of lawyers, you know. Not all of them are connected with criminal trials. Do you have any data on the numbers of these diverse types of lawyers? Americans have a very litigious legal culture. Meaning, we sue a lot. That isn't a criminal trial but a civil suit. So for all you know, most of those lawyers are civil trial types, not criminal defense attorneys. There are also lawyers who don't even go into court but engage in research and other legal services that do not require stepping into a courtroom, believe it or not. They are counted as "lawyers", because they have their JD and passed the bar exam. Anyway, to further my point, the entry on "attorneys in the United States": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneys_in_the_United_States pay special attention to this paragraph: So it seems to me that the massive numbers of lawyers in the States is likely due to this distinction; not to the use of juries in criminal cases.

I think my point was--and we seem to have departed both from that and from the topical intent of the original poster--that going from a jury system to a European-style justice system is more complicated than you seem to think. Do you also think that the United States (or Canada, ex-Quebec) should go to a codified law rather than common law?