Killing falls into many different categories. It's up to each of us to determine for ourselves where the lines are, if any. Murder, execution (ie sanctioned by some recognized authority), killing enemy fighters in wartime (ditto), self-defense, ...

Most of our modern, western morality stems from religion, which distinguishes between the first and third, for example.

the president lost the popular vote, and he's been impeached. even by usa's rigged democratic standard he should very little authority

and i'm not sure, but didn't way more people vote for democratic senators than republican senators, yet there are way more republican senators because of complete bs?

I'm certainly no expert on American Civics, but I thought that senators weren't intended to reflect the population, but represent States' interests. National popular vote wrt parties isn't relevant. Please let me know if I have this wrong.

yeah eric, that was my point.

in other news...

I know, filthy. My point, poorly made, was that the House and Senate have different functions. Why should the Senate reflect any kind of national popular vote? I agree that the House of Representatives should be somewhat in line with the national popular vote, and that the Presidential election absolutely should reflect it.

well the senate controls who sits on the supreme court and other judicial appointments. and right now it's up to the senate if the president will be removed from office. that's a few good reasons why the senate should reflect national popular vote.

In practice, given human nature, you are probably right. In theory, the decisions about judiciary should be about qualifications, not political leaning (I know, I know). Same for impeachment. The idea was that a sober, thoughtful group of people should examine what was before them and make decisions based on their individual assessments and values, with a majority vote carrying the group decision. It has degenerated (not just in USA) into a power struggle between rival gangs. The two party system in the US simply amplifies that fact.

In my own country, there is always talk that our own Senate should become an elected body, as opposed to the current state where Senators are appointed for life by the government. Personally, I disagree. I don't want both halves of the parliamentary system to be beholden to the whims of voters. They should be able to make difficult decisions based on what is best for the country, not what will get them re-elected. Canada is too regional as it is, and this is a very regional issue.

Sorry for the derail there.

What the ****.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...93975732527112

aoc tweeted about trump's war crime tweet, and just out of curiosity i read some of her replies. i was pretty surprised they were mostly right wing! people hating on her and her tweet

first of all im surprised that so many people are that idiotic and brainwashed. second i'm surprised they follow aoc i guess they follow her just so they can criticize her lol

Republicans are so triggered by her. She's young, female, brown and competent.

it's upsetting to see her get so much hate. makes me have less faith in humanity

i mean i kinda hate her too lol! but i hate her for being an imperialist. i don't hate her like those other asshats hate her

and despite myself, i do think her heart is in the right place. or at least i hope it is. it was always obvious to me that obama was scum. aoc is different imo

Eric, I am in the "abolish Canada's Senate" camp. In our system I feel that our MPs can do their job without the extra "sober second thought" body of appointees. I see our senate is an un-elected body of our gov that cost lots of money and gives us very little value.

Them being elected would only make the body more representative, but no more useful imo..

Just like I follow you (or read this thread)!

are your senators appointed by elected representatives?

if their appointments are for life, are they recall-able?


As for bicamerality, one house representing a composite of smaller regions and another house representing larger regions should encourage policies that accommodate a broader spectrum of socio-political identities (eg, I personally am an American, an Atlantic Southerner, a Georgian, a Gwinnettian, etc).

Eric coming in with some all time awful posts

Could you imagine Eric making this post about Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 highjackers? what a bunch of bullshit.

Westerns love to hide behind their genocidal institutions that makes them feel like they have cover to perpetuate unchecked violence abroad.

Capitalism makes them all do it, though, so nothing really to condemn but The System.

I'm talking about the philosophy around the concept of killing, and how there is no absolute moral determination and no absolute classification. The statements I made are not related to any particular killing or killer, so bringing up McVeigh or 9/11 is irrelevant, and is simply a reflection of your own views on the subject. Those, of course, are perfectly valid, but that is not sufficient to say that someone else's differing view isn't also valid. My own views are mine, and I make no claims about them in regard to any killing mentioned in this thread.

It is pretty clear to me that Western society, and many others in different eras and locales, has a built-in genocidal tendency which has become institutionalized. It's part of our biological and educational programming: those like me - good; those not like me - bad. Sometimes we can keep that in check, to a degree, but sometimes it runs a little more loose - like now, I believe.

Personally, I am against any killing of humans by humans. However, I can understand why someone else may feel differently, and why it happens sometimes. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

Please do correct my inaccurate interpretations of how the American political system works and how it was intended to work. I believe that all I have done is to point out how they differ from each other, as well as how they may differ from filthy's perceptions.

Fair point. I didn't consider that option in my analysis. All I'm really against is an elected Senate. It does raise the question of why so many countries maintain a two house system. Is it simply tradition, descended from the House of Lords and House of Commons? Or is there a real need to examine an issue/proposal in two different ways?

Thanks Trump voters/supporters. Great job.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...19480574812160

RICKY GERVAIS IS TRASHING HOLLYWOOD AT THE GOLDEN GLOBES. PRICELESS:

"I came here tonight in a limo, and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. Epstein didn't kill himself - I'm sorry, I know he's your friend!

If you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform for political speech, alright. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world.

You say you're woke but the companies you work for run sweatshops in China...Apple, Amazon, Disney...if ISIS started a streaming service you know you all would call your agents. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, accept your little award thank your agent and your god, and f**k off."

Tom Hanks & Tim Cook were not amused!

amazon actually does run a streaming service, and amazon has done far more harm than isis

Far more than isis

Precious