Peterkin

The progressive conservatives were stabbed in the back 20 years ago and the Alliance dropped any pretence of a progressive element. Since then, they've been pulled farther and farther right. If they take power, they're unlikely to give it up again until they destroy public services and climate mitigation efforts - and the tolerance we've worked so long to achieve. The whole world is in imminent danger of spiralling into big black holes of totalitarianism.

I wonder what Canada will do with eight late-night talk show hosts and two thousand climate scientists.

Never mind China, he'll start a war within the USA. Win or lose, he's hell-bent on igniting a civil war.

And many of them have a very limited range of interests. He's against inflation? OK; done. You shouldn't kill babies! He's our boy. I don't want another war. Neither does Trump. Wimmins got too much power. Vote Repub. Dark people have more babies; whites will be a minority - in our own country!! Can't let that happen. No perspective, no history, no bigger picture, no consideration of consequences. One issue, however inadequately addressed, and that's it. I'd love to see the post-life trial of broadcast media.

Apparently, other countries do have something similar to the electoral college, but none are skewed like the US one.

No, it's an outdated compromise made by a body of privileged white guys - more or less the aristocracy of their republic. In order to create a union (not all that more perfect), they had to accept the institution of slavery. That made the vote-eligible white population of the southern states smaller than the northern states'. To give the southern states equal representation, they were empowered to appoint electors (privileged white guys). The system should have been overhauled after the Civil War, but the problem with amending the Constitution is that it requires a two-thirds majority just to be heard and three quarters agreement to pass. Like proportional representation, it can't be legislated without the co-operation of those who benefit from the status quo.

You can also put Vaseline in your nostrils and try to breathe through your mouth. Unfortunately, you can't escape it altogether, but you can learn to cope. I used to have to boil badly putrified skulls (to clean the bones for ID) and slice femurs of drowning victims to look for diatoms. Sometimes the remains would come in big plastic bags and maggots would jump out when you opened one. Obviously not my favourite part of the job.

It's unpleasant for most of us. The early sign of spoilage in meat or dairy is a bad smell, warning us not to eat it. People who do eat spoiled food don't usually get sick, but it's a nasty experience. Canines will sometimes roll in cowpats or rotting corpses to hide their own scent from potential prey.

Primary polls are irrelevant. Haley is irrelevant (unless her supporters turn to Harris in the actual election). If you look at the article I cited, you'll see that all Republican delegates from Nevada were bound to Trump. He became the official candidate at the national convention. It's done and dusted. Now comes the actual election. I strongly recommend you read up on the US electoral process. Granted, it's complicated and doesn't always make sense, but you should understand it a little better before you make any more half-baked suggestions.

Airborne bacteria and viruses pretty much stop being a problem once the victim stops breathing/coughing/sneezing them out. Nevertheless, we used to go in gloved, masked and gowned when a decomposing corpse was deposited in the isolation room. It's not what you can smell that's dangerous; it's what you don't that could be. Toxins and pathogens usually transfer via liquids, so you want to keep your hands at arm's length. Miasma didn't cause the 1850's cholera outbreaks in London: contaminated water did.

Apparently not. The bad smell of decomposition is not a biohazard; it's simply unpleasant. I can attest to this personally, having seen a number of decomposing bodies and handled parts thereof, with no ill effects.

Matter of taste, innit?

Do you understand the difference between elections and primaries? The Trump team didn't file the paperwork on time for the primary voting, but he did compete in the caucus. So he participated - are you kidding?? He's never stopped campaigning since 2016! - in the Republican delegate selection process, and the party members knew this, so voted NOTA, because his name wasn't one of the candidates listed. https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/nevada It wasn't that hard to find. Maybe next time you can do it all by yourself. None of this has anything to do with Harris,

All the ones who are awake, yes. If you're interested, get informed. Otherwise, you're just blowing more hot air. I've come across a couple of otherwise benign-seeming people recently who declared that they would vote for Trump. (Fortunately, they don't live in the US.) Asked why, it's simply because they're against abortion. They know nothing else about either candidate and don't care. The willful ignorance and blinkered view of a large number of citizens can topple democracy anywhere, any time. ... Oh well, Germany survived a less stupid, mendacious and greedy dictator, though not without collateral damage.

Heads, progressive democratic government and robust economy; tails, dictatorship by a rabid, power-mad, vindictive, demented felon. Or, they could throw the coin away and have no government. Interesting proposition.

Lots of animals perform ritualistic behaviours and have special places, without any indication of the sacred. You have collections of stones (presumably not rocks, or they wouldn't be thrown), at specified places near large trees. They might be ammunition caches at strategic locations, in case of territorial conflict. The banging of a stone against a tree may mean "no enemy sighted". If the same thing happens in many places, among different troupes of apes, there is good reason to doubt a religious component: How would a belief system have spread? Was a chimp named Saul recently released from human captivity?

How should I know? It's your argument about dislocation and fairness and whatever moral decisions are. I've tried to understand it, but there's that rapid tectonic motion problem again.

Oh! Well, that's completely different from anything.

So then, not all decisions are emotional?

You don't understand what they're saying, but you understand what they're not saying as being sorta like what you wanted them to say. Check.

You mean there is no morality, no pragmatism and no intellectual investigation? It's all just a big emotional fiction?

Only I couldn't go to London to be in his presence; I was smeared in time place by watching him on the internet. When I'm reading a book (text), I'm in the same room with that book, and I understand its meaning quite clearly (unless it's economics or metaphysics). I don't see the connection of religions or their central themes.

Worked pretty well so far.

The difference is that fear is an emotion, not a moral choice.

Another article concluding the opposite. And that's not taking into account the role of zealotry and martyrdom. I would further speculate that depression is only one reason for people to contemplate suicide; there are practical and rational reasons, such as painful terminal illness, lack of hope for improvement or relief of an untenable situation, guilt over having done irreparable damage, reluctance to be a burden on and source of sorrow to loved ones, avoidance of imprisonment, torture or public humiliation. Many religious people are prevented by fear of damnation from seeking the obvious escape from unnecessary suffering; many caregivers are similarly hampered by their own religious beliefs so that they actively thwart any attempt by their charges; many lawmakers are still ruled by old religious dicta and make assisting a suicide illegal. Atheists are not bound by the 'God's will' bullshit, and therefore free to make their own decisions about their own lives.