segnosaur

This has already been explained multiple times. Go way back to post #2. In short: Trump is a failure as a businessman, with multiple bankruptcies and a string of failed businesses under his belt. I would rather not put the economy in the hands of someone with that little business sense. Furthermore, the number of lies he tells exceeds those of other candidates, and his grasp of economics, politics and international relations is poor (e.g. pigs blood bullets, the 42% unemployment rate, etc.) Uhh.. no. As has been explained multiple times in this thread... Many feel that Trump's incompetence will be detrimental to the world as a whole, both economically and politically. Regardless of Trump's "friendliness" with Canada, or the desire to maintain good relations between the 2 nations, having the U.S. economy crash the way so many of Trump's business ventures have crashed will not be good for Canada. And what makes you think that? Prior to the ouster of Kadaffy, Trump was calling for the U.S. to get involved in Libya. (Of course, since then, he's gone and lied about the issue.) And, he has also called for the bombing of oil fields controlled by Isis. He has also said he would deliberately kill children. Doesn't sound like a peacenick to me. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-02-26/ap-fact-check-trump-objects-to-cursing http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-on-bombing-isis-oil-fields/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-says-hed-force-us-military-commit-war/ Trump has been sued multiple times. He is currently under investigation for fraud for his role in Trump University. (This is in addition to all the other businesses that have folded with Trump's name on them, leaving other investors on the hook for millions of dollars.) Yeah, its easy to pick on other Candidates as being part of the "establishment", But if you are going to get rid of the establishment, you should try to replace it with something better.

On the other hand, it also means that Trump can get all the delegates even though he has less than half the vote. Have to wonder how that would affect the Republican voter base. Many Trump supporters voted for him because he is different/an outsider; such manipulation (or selecting someone from the floor of the convention) might make potential republican voters simply stay home on election day.

Please point to me one case in recent history (i.e. within a generation or so) where Canada has formed any sort of military alliance with a country who's leader has stated, quite plainly, that he planed to engage in war crimes. If they are "alleged combatants" then targeting them would not necessarily be against the geneva convention and would not constitute a war crime. The geneva convention does not require a country to act with perfection. Mistakes (such as misidentifying a target as a combatant) is regrettable but a forgivable mistake. It is a different circumstance than knowing an individual is innocent/a non combatant, is not doing anything in support of the conflict, yet is still targeted.

What do you think President Obama does with drone attacks ? Booya !! He targets the terrorists themselves, not the families. I am not saying that drone strikes are perfect, nor are only terrorists killed; innocent civilians are too. But for something to be considered a war crime, a civilian population must be targeted. That is what Trump was proposing: the targeted killing of non-combatants, a war crime. And that is the problem... should Trump become president, he will probably find it difficult to establish military alliances, because being associated with a country that deliberately engages in war crimes would be an incredibly unpopular decision.

Well, for one he benefited from his family connections in the early years. Plus, given the estimated value of his father's wealth, Trump would likely have inherited 10s of millions of dollars. (Not to mention the fact that he would have had access to credit due to his father's name, which would have given him access to millions to use to invest.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/ And, it should be noted that he has made significant use of various bankruptcy laws. While its not unusual for a company to use the bankruptcy laws to help reorganize and survive, Trump's businesses have done so multiple times (Trump walks away from a debt, saving him money but leaving his lenders footing the bill). Of course, the problem is, a country can't just go and declare bankruptcy like a person or business. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-agrawal/trumped-the-donald-has-fi_b_8403708.html Then there are all the smaller investors that have been fleeced over the years... Investors who went into business ventures with Trump, only to see things go belly-up and get stuck. Or things like Trump University, which charged students thousands. (There are various law suits and claims of Fraud against Trump over that.) Much of Trump's "success" has come not from his financial genius, but from his ability to market himself. He gets his name stuck on the side of a building (despite having nothing to do with its construction) and gets a license fee. But consider all of the businesses that he has been involve with that have failed: The mortgage company, Trump vodka. In fact, he seems to have more in common with Kim Kardashian (who, to many, appears to be "famous for being famous") than with Warren Buffet (who actually seems to have some business sense). It should also be noted that Trump's net worth isn't really known to the public. He's "claimed" that he's worth billions (sometimes there are estimates of $10 billion) but most put the estimates at far lower. Forbes lists him as being worth roughly $4 billion. I've even seen estimates as low as $200 million. Trump claims that billions of dollars of his wealth are due to his "brand" (i.e. not his actual assets or income, but his name recognition.) Finally, here's something: in 1976, Trump claimed he was worth $200 million. He claims he's now worth $10 billion. If he took that initial $200 million and invested it in index funds, he would now be worth roughly $12 billion. So, for all his claims of financial brilliance, he is (on average) doing worse than the stock market. (And that is using the overly generous estimate of $10 billion, rather than the more likely figure of $4 billion.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/

I think the answer is obvious... Charlie Sheen. From: http://www.people.com/article/charlie-sheen-donald-trump-vice-president After slamming the GOP front-runner in a very special tweet last month, the former Two and a Half Men star has had a change of heart – and now wants to be the Donald's running mate.

And once again... my primary complaint is not that he proposed a border wall with Mexico. (I recognize that there are already sections of the border that are walled off.) My complaint is that he suggested he would somehow get Mexico to pay for it. The idea that he could somehow get a foreign country to pay for something of primary concern to Americans is an extremely foolish notion, and shows that he does not have a good grasp of what is a reasonable course of action. This has been explained to you multiple times. Please make an attempt to understand it. And, as I explained way back in my first post in this thread... my concern is that Trump is such an incompetent individual (multiple business failings, proposal to engage in war crimes, etc.) that he is likely to not only significantly harm the U.S., but to drag the rest of the world down too. I do not like Cruz or Rubio, but any harm that is done will likely be limited in scope. All of this has been explained to you before. Please try to understand it.

Well, for better or worse, many of the lawsuits Trump is facing are currently in the courts. (He may even need to take the stand some time during the election.) From: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/01/ny-court-rules-fraud-charges-against-trump-university-can-proceed.html Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump suffered a legal setback on Tuesday when a New York state court allowed a multimillion-dollar fraud claim against Trump University, filed by the state's attorney general, to proceed. The claim is part of a lawsuit that accuses Trump and the now-defunct for-profit venture of misleading thousands of people, who paid up to $35,000 to learn the billionaire businessman's real estate investment strategies. ... Class actions are pending in California on similar claims by former Trump University students. ... The lower-court judge in Manhattan has already determined that Trump and his university are liable for operating illegally in New York state as an unlicensed educational institution. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432010/trump-university-scam The second article goes into more details about how students were scammed... things like: - Being promised that they would have contact with financial people but were not - Claimed that the instructors were "hand picked" by Trump when again, they were not - At one point students went on a field trip to look at old buildings, but the instructors gave no details about how they were supposed to fix them or make a profit from them

Already explained this to you multiple times. Hopefully some day it will sink in. First of all, Yes, Obama and other politicians have lied. The difference between Trump and those other politicians is both in the number of lies (as I pointed out, politifact has him lying at more than twice the rate of hillary), and the type of lies that he is using (e.g. the 'pigs blood' lie; if he is going to be dealing with other countries/cultures, it would be a good thing for him to do a little fact-checking before he starts spouting off). Secondly, as I pointed out, it is not just Trump's lies... it is his policies (magically forcing Mexico to build a wall? Engaging in war crimes?), his failings as a businessman, and his inability to present a rational facade (the president must be able to interact with both other politicians in the U.S. and with other world leaders) that we have concerns should he become president.

Well, as has been explained to you before.... Trying to replace the "establishment" like Clinton/Bush/Obama with someone like Trump would be like trying to cure athlete's foot with dinomite. Trump is largely a failure as a businessman. He has had bankruptcy issues in the past. He is being sued over his Trump University by students who felt it was a scam (and ended up with a D- rating from the better business bureau). He has been sued (and forced to settle) after various real estate deals failed and left small investors in the hook. He opened a mortgage company right before the housing market collapsed, leaving many of his bills unpaid. (Granted, most people didn't see the housing crisis, but isn't Trump supposed to be a financial genius who's better than everyone?) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/01/ny-court-rules-fraud-charges-against-trump-university-can-proceed.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal budget, Trump's tax plan would double the amount of federal debt over the next decade. http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-do-donald-trumps-campaign-proposals-so-far-add-up/ Bill Clinton and Obama have been far from perfect, yet under Clinton there was a string of years when there was pretty strong economic growth, and Obama has managed to guide the U.S. out of the recession. I'd much rather have an established politician who knows how things work, both in politics and the world, than some failed businessman who lies about even the simplest things (e.g. not knowing who david duke is) who proposes plans that are both reckless (using pigsblood coated bullets, or engaging in war crimes to stop terrorism) or simply not feasible (e.g. magically forcing Mexico to pay for a wall). Its amazing how easily people fall into that type of empty rhetoric. I'm surprised that you didn't start tossing around the world "sheeple". The facts that I have given are just those... facts. There is video of Trump talking about 'pigs blood', even though the story of how it was used is fabricated. There is a video of Trump claiming he "didn't know Duke" even though it was easy to track down statements indicating that he did indeed know who he was. The lawsuits against Trump are a matter of public record. Despite your claim of "establishment media", every one of the facts I have posted here is completely true. Nope... we just consider her a better choice than a blowhard with multiple failed business ventures and a much greater track record of lies behind him. How? By doubling the debt in a decade, as his tax policies would do? By engaging in war crimes? Yes, he could. His plan to "kill the families of terrorists" would be considered a war crime under the geneva convention. This would likely alienate any allies that the U.S. has, and leave it isolated. His tax plans would double the U.S. debt in a decade. His past business dealings, plus his claims of "42% unemployment" show that he has very little real grasp of how the economy works. And, he does have a habit of blaming those underneath him for his failures. So, if everything fails because he picked the wrong people, how exactly is he going to pick people to serve in his cabinet?

Who is taking the survey? It is not a survey. Politifact is a reputable organization (they won the Pulitzer prize) which examines statements from ALL candidates. Its widely viewed as non-partisan (with criticism aimed at both republicans and democrats). While it may not necessarily be an exhaustive list of statements (for example, it didn't have Trump's lie of not knowing who David Duke was), it is certainly a good yardstick by which to compare candidates. More importantly, it debunks one specific claim you made: That Trump isn't lying. Politifact was started in 2007, so there could (in theory) be statements by various Candidates going back that far. However, if you look at the 'Pants on Fire' list of Trump lies, as well as the list of lies that I posted in my previous statement, you can see that they are all within the past year (i.e. since the start of the recent election cycle). None are (as you may try to complain), just "old news". I have provided several evidence of multiple lies. Unless you have evidence that the evidence provided was fabricated, you are simply wrong. Trump himself is crooked. He has been sued multiple times, over things like land deals and his Trump University. He attempted to use the government to seize the house of an elderly lady so he could turn it into a parking lot. So if your argument is that he's taking on the crookedness in politics, you are only replacing one type of crookedness with another. Secondly, even if there is a problem with crookedness in politics, there are better ways to state that that do not make you sound like a first class jerk. He did not have to lie about knowing who David Duke was to say "there's corruption in politics". He did not have to lie about the use of pigs blood to stop muslim rebels. He did not have to lie about seeing people celebrating on 9/11. None of those are tackling the issue of corruption in politics. Yet there he was, saying this which were not true. She may. But that does not necessarily mean that Trump is someone that should be president. Which does not mean that Trump is honest or a good prospect to actually be president, only that he has convinced enough people to vote for him for whatever reason.

Probably quite a few. But when it comes to politics (and in particular this election), it is probably far far less than trump. From politifact: % of statements that are classified as false/mostly false(or 'pants on fire'): Trump: 78% http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ Hillary: 28% http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ (There are additional statements that are classified as "mostly false", but those affect both candidates) ETA: I should also note: In your earlier post, you claimed that Trump "has not said anything that would appear to be a lie." (your exact words). Now that I've pointed out multiple examples of lies, you have come out and compared him to Hillary. Is that the sound of goalposts moving?

The Twin Towers were largely glass-and-steel. Designed to allow a little sway in high winds. The pentagon was designed for security... strongly enforced outer and inner walls. Because of that, you will get a different set of circumstances for the impact. Far from being 'funky physics', its what you'd expect in circumstances like that.

Anyone who enjoys good satire should watch the recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on YouTube. Completely destroys Trump, pointing out many of his lies and hypocritical statements. They also reveal that the Trump name used to actually be Drumph, but was changed by one of Trump's ancestors. So, they've started selling baseball caps with the logo Make Donald Drumph again. CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LINK

I don't think you understand what the word 'inconsistent' means. For a fear of Trump to be 'inconsistent', trump would have to be similar to other candidates. However, I have gone to great lengths to explain why trump is different than both the other candidates in this election cycle, and with candidates in previous elections. The fact that Trump is so different, in his inability to engage in reasonable debate, his bombast, his reputation as a businessman, and even his outright lies, means that viewing him differently than other candidates (even having some fear over his presidency) is not inconsistent. I am not saying that other politicians don't have their faults. Every politician has probably lied at some point, or gotten caught in some scandal of some type. With Trump however, the degree of his faults dwarfs the other candidates. Uhhh.... no, you are assuming things without support, and (probably for many) is outright wrong. I have told you the exact reason I fear a trump presidency. Full stop. It has nothing to do with what military conflicts Canada might be dragged into (since we always have the ability to opt out). For you to assume that it is is to assume you are reading my mind and picking up thoughts that aren't there. Once again... Trumps current bombast, his questionable grasp of the facts, and his failures as a businessman suggest that a Trump presidency will lead to significant harm of the U.S. (and eventually the world) economy, and also global politics, as a reasonable set of actions in the middle east and elsewhere is replaced by pigs-blood bullets and double-speak. Except of course I doubt that many undecided voters will believe him if he "dials it back". Nobody is complaining that there aren't valid issues to discuss regarding illegal immigration, or that at least some border fence exists. But the overall rhetoric (get Mexico to pay! Oh, and they're mostly rapists although some I assume are nice people) takes what could be a valid political discussion and turns it into a 3-ring circus.

Have you looked into Cruz's positions? He scares me far more than Trump. Trump is all bombast but there is no indication that he wants to turn America into a theocracy. Cruz, on the other hand... Yes, I have looked at the positions of Cruz, Rubio, etc.. I can't really think of any that I like, and if I were in the states I probably wouldn't vote for any of the Republican candidates. The difference between them is that while Cruz may try to implement religious-based reforms (restricting abortion, gay marriage, etc.) for the most part those changes would mostly impact the U.S. Relations with other countries would largely be unaffected. On the other hand, I don't think a bombastic Trump (running around accusing other countries of being rapists and talking about using pigs-blood bullets, and running the country like he ran his businesses when he declared bankruptcy) will be beneficial with the world as a whole. In addition, there are limits on what Cruz can do as president. (Any laws that are passed must pass constitutional muster.) On the other hand, Trump as president can say almost anything (regardless of how stupid it is) and cause serious harm in world relations and there is no way to reign him in. Remember, the opening post was questioning why Canadians fear Trump. The problem is, doing things the way he is is incredibly polarizing. He may win the republican nomination, but being bombastic may make it harder to win centrist voters, and it might just cause non-trump republicans to stay home on election day. So, he wins the battle but looses the war.

It is kinda fun to watch the Donald having to squirm over something his own big mouth got him into. Finally. That's the problem though... he's not 'squirming'. Trump has made multiple statements that are outright wrong, that either contradict known facts, or contradict things that he himself has said. A normal politician should be embarrassed. But trump is not.

Actually he's said many things that are lies... For example: - His claim that a general used bullets dipped in pigs blood to stop muslim unrest. - As another poster brought up, that he doesn't know who David Duke is, despite directly referencing him (and his reputation) a few years ago - His claim that he 'witnessed' thousands celebrating on 9/11, despite the fact nobody else can recall that happening - The claim that Vaccines and autism are linked Politifact is a non-partisan (they point out falsehoods made by both Republicans and Democrats) and well respected source has a list of statements made by Trump that are of various truthfullness. May are classified as outright lies. Of course, I guess it depends on your definition of "lie". If something is completely false, but Trump still believes it, can you still consider it a "lie"? First of all, the claim that Trump had evidence of Obama not being a citizen came during Obama's first term. Secondly, if he really had such evidence, it would be an issue for the legal system, not for the media. So if he truly had such evidence, he should have brought it forward and let the courts figure it out, regardless of what the media thought. Lastly, your argument makes absolutely no sense. Trump was the one who brought up the citizenship issue on multiple occasions, so he had already put his "neck in the noose". Actually bringing forward real evidence would not have harmed his reputation any more than it was already harmed. You see, here's the problem... There may be a valid discussion that could be had on the issue of immigration reform. But, Trump's rhretoric is counter productive. Talk of building a wall (which would largely be ineffective) and getting Mexico to pay for it (something likely not possible) is silly, as is talking about mexicans being rapists (and only after saying "some I assume are good people". It takes what could be a valid topic for discussion and turns it into a 3 ring circus.

Actually, back in 2000, Trump directly referred to David Duke as a racist. So back then he knew his name and knew at least a little of his history. So, for him to now say he "doesn't know who David Duke" is (someone that he considered significant enough back then that he made political decisions because of him) means that he is either 1) lying, 2) has the memory retention of a gold fish. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/ Now, Trump is trying to complain he had a 'faulty ear piece' that lead to his confusion, but that makes no sense, since he specifically repeated Duke's name himself, so its not like he misheard who the interviewer was talking about.

Not sure if you seriously think Trump is honest in any way. A few seconds of google can find plenty of examples of hypocritical attitudes and outright lies made by trump. I'm still waiting for Trump's proof that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, as he promised years ago. Keep in mind that being politically incorrect does not necessarily make you right on the issues. You can claim all you want that complaints against Trump's Mexican Wall are just "political correctness run amok", but fact is it is a stupid plan.

As do/does many other nations, but their candidates are not FEARED in Canada. The United States has a large impact on Canada because Canada has purposely integrated its economy, military, etc. with the USA. And yet candidate Clinton has/will make identical decisions...but no FEAR ? I thought I made it clear... In my initial posting, I pointed to multiple deficiencies in Trump as a candidate and as a businessman. Now, it is true that no candidate is perfect, but the sheer magnitude of Trump's faults dwarf those of his competitors. I may not like many of the policies of (for example) Cruz or Rubio. But, I recognize them as accomplished politicians who are at least partly rational in the way that they present themselves. Its also true that Clinton (and pretty much every politician) will make decisions that are unpopular or even unwise. We have no way of judging how Trump will handle various issues if he should ever get into power; the best we can do is make guesses based on his campaigning and his pre-election history, and that suggests that he will make poor decisions more often than the other candidates. This is a very old Canadian refrain, regardless of U.S. elections or presidents. It is true that there is usually a certain amount of anti-American sentiment. Usually though such opinions are in in the minority. Trump is different. Instead of such "bad U.S." thoughts being limited to a small minority, he is different enough from other candidates (people from both in this election and in the past) that it is causing people to worry who might not have cared otherwise. Again, previous presidents have routinely deployed conventional forces. Obama sure did. No Canadian FEAR then....why now ? Not sure why you're being so obtuse about that. Yes, Obama deployed conventional forces. So did Clinton. So did Regan. And probably every president ever. But as I've already pointed out... Trump has made statements that definitely make him appear irrational. (Things like stopping Isis with bullets coated in pigs blood). If a politician appears rational during the campaign, then its at least possible that they will attempt to use military force wisely. If the politician appears like a nutcase during the campaign, why should we assume that they will even attempt to use force wisely? This is by design....Trump is banking on backlash sentiment(s) to drive his candidacy. He can always apologize later. First of all, you are assuming that it is by design, a ploy/tactic to get elected, and will somehow start acting more contritely should he be elected. Its also possible that he plans to stick with his current bluster. I see no reason to assume he will suddenly become "Donald the apologetic" after the election. Secondly, even if he does decide to apologize later... do you really think that will do much good? If you were a world leader, would you really want to maintain friendly relations with the U.S. after his borderline racist statements, even if he did say sorry afterwords? If you were a congressman or senator, would you really go out of your way to support a president who's made such statements? Many wouldn't trust that his apology was sincere (and why would they, if he was using lies and insults to drive his candidacy.)

I think that even those with the strongest anti-american sentiment probably at least accept the fact that, regardless of how isolated we make ourselves, the U.S. will always have an impact on us and the world. For example, Canada did not send troops to Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the effects of that war did not affect us (and the middle east) in some way. And bad economic decisions in the U.S. will impact our economy here. As I pointed out, it probably has little to do with Trump "targeting" Canada; probably more in the "he's going to drive the U.S. into trouble and we'll be dragged along with them". The president does not own America's nuclear weapons, and the U.S. national command authority to use strategic nuclear weapons does not depend on one person's decision. Could be that the poster bringing up nuclear weapons was engaging in a little hyperbole. Even if the president doesn't singularly control the U.S. nuclear arsenal, they do have some authority in deploying conventional military forces. And some people might question whether we want to give that authority to someone who's plan to stop Isis is to use bullets coated in pigs blood. Keep in mind that not everyone who is against Trump is for Trudeau. I voted conservative in the last election. I consider Trudeau to be an idiot. Yet I dislike the idea of a Trump presidency. As for his apologies... maybe he actually should consider issuing a few. Many of his statements have been outright falsehoods and quite insulting to many.

Donald Trump appears (at least during the campaign) to be completely incompetent. Mean spirited (whereas a president needs to be diplomatic to a certain degree), unable to engage in rational debate (e.g. dropping out of one of the republican debates because he didn't like the terms), and what few policy ideas he's given have been poorly thought out (e.g. make Mexico pay for a wall). Many of his comments during the election have been... questionable (e.g. Muslims celebrating 9/11); you'd think someone attempting to run for the most powerful position in the world would do a little fact checking before hand. And its not just his actions during the election that are questionable but also his past record... remember, he's a businessman who was basically given everything he needed right at the start (i.e. can't really say he's a "self made man".). He's also declared bankruptcy multiple times. (I do recognize that, in the business world, declaring bankruptcy is often useful to prevent a business from shutting down and give it time to reorganize... still, he managed to rack up huge amounts of debt. Not exactly the type of attitude you'd want the president to take.) The problem is, even if Trump doesn't specifically do anything to target Canada, having such an incompetent person in charge of the U.S. (a country with which we have strong economic and social ties) might just end up dragging us down along with the U.S. ETA: And never forget, Donald Trump wants to bang his daughter. http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-ivanka-sex-trevor-noah-daily-show

No, but the building was significantly damaged be debris from the collapse of Towers 1&2. It wasn't the primary cause of the collapse, but it did damage some of the supports, and was the likely cause of fires. It didn't collapse into its own footprint. Other nearby buildings were significantly damaged from the collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_of_Manhattan_Community_College#Fiterman_Hall_and_the_September_11_attacks Tower 7 did not collapse in 6 seconds. It took between 19 and 37 seconds (depending on how the end of the collapse is measured). The events on September 11 were unique... structural damage from the collapse of the other towers, long-lasting fires, problems with the sprinkler system, etc. Building 7 was likely constructed properly under the building codes that existed at the time, but even the best constructed building will eventually collapse if enough stress is put on it. The collapse has been investigated, and yes, there have been recommendations for improving building standards. But that doesn't mean that the building was poorly constructed, nor does it mean that the collapse had any other cause other than fires and damage from the twin towers collapse.

And that's why we are talking about sentencing minimums, not a fixed sentence for every crime. If a judge decides that a defendant is contrite, they can assign the minimum; if not, they get the maximum. The fact that a judge is educated does not necessarily mean that they are infallible. They may be having an off day. They may be influenced by past events in their own lives. They may even be totally nuts. See: David William Ramsay as an example. In a democracy, we all have a say in saying how the country is run, through our elected representatives, and that includes what we deem as expected punishment for various crimes. By allowing judges to circumvent that (by in theory giving no jail time because the judge said so) you are substituting the aspect of representative democracy with oligarchy. Then why are you here? This is an on-line forum. People debate issues. Are you honestly so arrogant as to assume your postings are so significant that you can state something as if its the word of god, ignoring any challenges to it? That's sad. And pathetic. Is pathetisad a word?