MigL

Very little in both; D Trump spent most of his time on the golf course. ( or with porn stars/hookers )

An Indian engineer I used to work with, moved out West to Edmonton, last year to work for one of the oil companies. We had become good friends so we still keep in touch. He brought his brother over on a visa, and found him a job in Jasper ( where he has cousins ) to guarantee his application for landed immigrant status. I spoke to my friend Parth last night and he told me his brother's workplace and apartment, along with almost half the town, had been burned down by a wall of flames driven by 100km/hr winds. All evacuees were sent BC way, not further inland Alberta,

Apparently some people are taking the idea of a 'bridge' between the parties, in order to defeat D Trump, seriously. "Haley voters for Harris" plans to continue supporting K Harris' Presidential bid, in order to stop Trump, even though N Haley has told them to stop. ‘Haley Voters for Harris’ vow to fight on after Nikki sends them cease-and-desist letter (msn.com) Maybe in the same way D Trump told the Jan 6 insurrection to stop ...

Maybe you could do an 'expose' on gambling, next.

You would do well to read the whole thread, so that you fully understand other's views, before commenting with references to Nazi Germany, as you also did in the Incel thread. Is that a common theme with amateur psychologists ? Last I checked, an asteroid impact equivalent to 10 000 times the world's nuclear arsenal is not a predator. But I do agree, the sky is full of them. We call them birds. Thanks MSC, you seem to be the only one who got the point of our original discussion. The benefit of society is not necessarily the benefit of the species, and vice versa. Others are merely choosing to attack the examples I provided of 'not necessarily', which in itself indicates some cases fit and some don't. You also seem to have recognized how the ( mistaken ) belief that people were benefitting their society, almost caused the extinction of a group of people ( Jews are not a separate race ) in Germany, 90 years ago. But there are many more such examples.

I could be wrong, but I do believe TheVat mentioned it previously in this thread. You know that eventually the two parties have to work together, they cannot continue to polarize the country such that the whole purpose of government/politicians is to get re-elected, and not actually govern the country. No, Lon would be a terrible choice. Heck, he'd be even older than J Biden ... if he was still alive. Of course I meant Liz Cheney 🙂 . Personally, I don't think an astronaut's 'coolness' factor translates well to politics. And given his 'on the job' experience, I would lean towards Shapiro, of the two that I read are shortlisted. And those two would not make MY shortlist; I believe others are more suitable. But K Harris is competent enough to select a running mate she feels would best complement and strengthen her Presidential bid. After all, she spent most of her formative teenage years in Canada, so I would think she's quite a bit more sensible than most of you Americans 😄 .

If the biggest threat in this coming election is the damage to democracy that a D Trump win could mean, it may be time to consider the 'unity' ticket that has been mentioned previously. I don't see much chance of this coming to pass, because of resistance from both sides, but bringing on board almost sane Republicans, such as L Chaney, would still keep most all Democrat votes, plus steal away a fair number of Republican votes and guarantee a democracy saving win. The country cannot keep going the way it's headed; eventually sane heads must prevail, and work together for the benefit of the country, not their individual parties. "We don't need no civil war." - G 'n R It is now being reported that J Shapiro and M Kelly are shortlisted as VP running mates to K Harris.

In some cases yes. Going back to the wildebeest example, they do encircle their young to try to protect them with the mass of the herd. But the sick and infirm, not so much, and although elephants do try to protect their injured, they instinctively stay away from diseased members of their group. Its a jungle out there; if you've ever seen an animal take down its prey and rip out its intestines while it is still alive, I don't think you could make the argument that nature has a moralistic tendency.

Because it is only accurate for a large percentage of cases, but not all ? All those turtles that hatch on the beach, and race to the water to escape predators have the trait of reproducing in large numbers. Reproduction in smaller numbers has been 'extincted' out of their gene pool. As a matter of fact, if they could run faster, their chances at reproduction would also improve.

Again, weak and strong were not a measure of physical strength, but rather a weakness , or a strength, in a particular trait that confers reproductive advantage. And yes, if you are physically strong enough to survive your predators, you have a chance at reproduction. If you don't survive your predators, you have no chance. That is not a complicated argument. Nor am I advocating for a society without morals; just pointing out that nature works that way. And other than for dinosaurs and dodo birds, evolution has worked out pretty well ( at least till we go extinct ).

Oh, I don't know. I've briefly met Marc Garneau, selected as an astronaut in 1983, and the first Canadian in space. He then served as an MP and cabinet minister in the Trudeau Government. I met him while he was a cabinet MP, and I don't know if his stint in Government had tarnished my opinion of him, but I wasn't impressed.

Strong and weak do not refer to physicality per se, but were in reference to 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' of particular attributes that make a species more suitable to their environment, and more likely to reproduce. They could refer to properties such as appearance, intelligence, or ( at least for humans ) a good sense of humor and ability to listen. Most animals that tend to herd ( have a somewhat social behavior ) protect their young by keeping them in the middle of the herd, but I'm sure you've seen all the videos ( narrated by D Attenborough ) of a youngster getting separated from the herd and falling behind. A lion has no qualms about passing up 'beef' when it can have 'veal'.

It would seem K Harris is the yet undeclared Democratic contender for the upcoming election, so we can stop discussing her 'faults' or advantages others may have brought. We can discuss a running mate that adds to, or enhances, her attributes, and has the best chance of defeating the Trump/Vance ticket. And just to turn the tables on D Trump, maybe news sources will start mentioning that he is now the oldest person to run for President. And almost incoherently crazy ...

That's why we're here. We may be discussing two differing conepts; benefit of society, and benefit of the species. Your, and I suspect MSC's, point is certainly valid for benefitting society, but benefit of the species has no morals attached to it. It is simply the purpose of life to procreate. Our species may have morals, but we are still essentially just animals. The wildebeest have no problem giving up the weak and infirm for the lion's lunch, because it means disease and weaknesses are not passed on to future generations, making them 'stronger' as a species. The ones that are fast enough to outrun the lion pass on their genes. Similarly, a monkey with bad eyesight will not catch the next vine or branch, when swinging through the trees, and will fall to its death, never reproducing, and never passing on the 'bad eyesight' genes. Our morals don't permit that, so we give people eyeglasses ( and surgery ), they reproduce and pass on inherited eye disease. Even social animals, ants, bees, etc., will sacrifice the diseased or weak to save their colony, although our morals don't really allow for their 'kind of society' ( except maybe in India, where the caste system allows for different value of different people ). So, as an advanced society, we have the luxury of morals, only because evolutionary environmental forcings don't affect us as much anymore. The eyeglasses I mentioned earlier, and research into curing inherited disease, are some examples. The fact that we don't need to be fast or strong as protection from predators since we have guns. We don't need differing skin melanin levels as we don't need to adapt to our environment, rather we adapt our environment to us with glass and steel shelters and heating/air conditioning. It is not that I'm advocating against morals, yet they do seem to conflict with our nature. A nature that has served us well for about 65 Million years, and has made mammals, and us humans ( the only ones with morals ), the dominant life form on this planet.

Please do. I'd like to educate you on how natural selection works in evolution. ( or possibly, be educated by you )