Ten oz

Conservatives have spend years convincing themselves of many things. One major belief is that every dollar the govt spends on anything besides the military is counterproductive to capitalism and restricts individual freedom. That the Constitution was more meant keep govt out of peoples lives than it was meant to establish a govt per se. So it isn't surprising Trump's supporters are not put off by his lack of knowlegde, lying, and overall incompetence. To them Trump is mocking the system. Many supported him for that very reason, they reject govt. Add in racism and a sense of religious superiority and it is clear why Trump's supporters don't care. They want him to ruin things. The govt should be involved in healthcare, education, evironmental protection, or civil rights. So why should they care Trump is incompetent. The worse of a job POTUS does the more liberty they believe they'll have.

135.7 million people voted in 2016. Whites made up 70% of all voters, 95 million. Trump received 58%, 55 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 87% of Trump's voters were white. Blacks made up 12% of all voters, 16.3 million. Trump received 8%, 1.3 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 2% of Trump's voters were black. Hispanic made up 11% of all voters, 14.9 million. Trump received 29%, 4.3 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 7% of Trump's voters were Hispanic. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 Clintion received 37% of the total White vote, 35.1 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 53% of Clinton voters were White. Clintion received 88% of the total Black vote, 14.3 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 22% of Clinton voters were Black. Clintion received 65% of the total Hispanic vote, 9.7 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 15% of Clinton voters were Hispanic.

I never said all of that. Humans do change the world to a greater degree and are capable of many things, like language, that no other animal aren't. However we are an animal. We share the same biology and almost all the same genetic code (DNA). Our brain power, intelligence, smarts, or whatever you want to call it is an adaptation just as a giaffe's long neck is. Amongst ourselve their are differences. Some humans can speak 10 languages while other just one, or even none. Does speaking 10 languages make someone more sentient than someone who just speaks one? What is the measurement of a more capable mind amongst humans? These things all exist in degrees. Animals other than humans do many things we do they just do them to lesser degrees and vice versa. Humans run, but to a lesser degree than a horse. I don't see where the line in the sand is. The point when something is done a such a degree better that we must recategorize; sentient human v non sentient animal.

Natural selection is about who lives to reproduce. It isn't about intelligence. To say we are the pinnacle implies a linear path from worst to best. To imply that means you do not understand how evolution. As for modify the quality of our lives, don't Ants modify the quaity of their lives by building colonies? A beaver modifies the quality of their lives and the lives of other animals by building a dam.

Humans cannot chase down and kill an elk without tools, wolves can. As such if humans were going to catch and eat elks we needed to develop tools. Wolves simply haven't had a use for our level of intelligence. Humans needed to be more intelligent. By "need" and "use" I mean it spared us from extinction. Humans were on the brink of extinct at several times during our evoliution and only humans with advantageous mutations survived. We have the ability to do the things you listed because we'd be extinct otherwise. That is how it works. Different traits have been advantageous to different species. Sharks evolved almost 500 million years ago and haven't changed much because they have had healthy populations and reproduction rates. Comparing the capabilities of brains across species isn't an apples to apples comparison. Different species have evolved to do different things. We evolved to build and construct tools. Our brains are more capable of performing doing that. However that isn't the exclusive purpose of a brain. As for your early post in this thread I already responded to that, see post #51.

Capable of what? A dog's brain can process their 300 million olfactory receptors. Their small is 40 times superior to ours (humans). Dogs can also hear up to 45,000hz, 4 times the distance of humans. While it is physical parts of the nose and ear that receive information the processing of all that information is done in the brain. The human brain isn't capable of pocessinng sound and odor the way a dog's brain is. What the brain of any animal is capable of is relative to what was evolutionarily advantageous. You seem to be implying that brains exist to process inofrmation logically and thus the more logical an animal is the more capable in general their brain. That isn't the case. Different anaimals evolved to excel at different things and the brain follows suit. Human brains can't echo locate but a bats brain can. I think you are treating human evolutionary traits as superior. A cheetah's shoulder blades aren't attached to their collar bone. Such traits allow them the flexibility to run at 70mph/112kmh. In my opinion that is as uniquely and highly an evolved trait as the hyoid bone in humans that allow us to produce a wide range of sounds, speak. There is no pinnacle of evolution. No best. When humans are all dead and gone, extinct, Tardigrades will still be around.

What infastructure spending has Trump actually presented? Parties are made up of thousands of politicians. There will also be loose qoutes to use to trying and make a point. Just a couple weeks back Paul Ryan said he didn't want Trump to work with Democrats on Healthcare. Ultimately Trump has only been in 100 days and he can't even get his own party to support many of his proposals. I see no point in going tit for tat regarding compromise with Trump when his own party sunk his healthcare plan and won't even bring his other promises like term limits up for Congress members up for a vote. For examples of compromises lets look at Bush's first term. He got Democratic support on Tax cuts, Education, Healthcare, and etc. In 2001 Bush's Tax cut saw 14 Democrat senators vote "yea". https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170 In 2001 Bush's No Child left Behind education bill saw 43 Democratic senators vote "yea". https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371 In 2001 only a single lone Democrat voted against the Patriot Act which actually gave Bush more power. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 in 2003 Bush's tax cut saw 3 Democrat Senators vote "yea". This is significant because the bill would have failed with those 3 votes. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00179 In 2003 Bush's Iraq Resolution saw 29 Democrat senators vote "yea". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate In 2003 Bush's Medicare drug plan saw 10 Democrat senators vote "yea". https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459 Yes, Democrats are inclusive. Democrats have a considerably more diverse voting base amongst races, religions, genders, education, income, etc, etc, etc. I won't even both with a citiation here because it is too obvious. Democrats have a large umbrella.

I agree.There are a few reasons for this. For starters Democrats as a matter of platform believe in compromise while Republicans do not. Democrat philosophy also accepts that change can be slow and incremental while Republcans believe the righteous (themselves) deserve what they deserve right now at this minute and always. Race plays a big factor too. It is simply easier to ignore minorities and women in our society. This is still a society that listens more closely, takes more seriously, pays more attention to, and etc things white males say and want. Lastly Democrats are inclusive and attempt to not to alienate anyone while Republicans are exclusive and proudly alienate people. It is actually comical to me. I so often hear Democrats talking about the need to reach out to coal miners and rural males in the Mid West. Dems have conceded that messaging over the last few years has alienated people in the dust bowl. Meaningwhile Republican aren't afraid of their messaging. They aren't affraid chanting "drill baby drill" will alienate environmentalists, aren't afraid chanting "build the wall" will alienate hispanics, aren't afraid chanting "all lives matter" will alienate black lives matters, aren't afraid "grab them by the p#@!$" will alienate women. Democrats consistantly get more votes overall yet accept that they are somehow out of touch. Dems suffer from low self esteem while the republican's self esteem is through the roof. Even during Obama's years it was this way. Obama was a popular and successful President yet many Democrats were afraid of being too supportive of the ACA allowing Republicans to dominate the conversation and label it Obamacare. Same goes for everything from the GM bailout to Iran deal. Dems were lukewarm at best and afraid to be too strong in their support. Republcans were very loud in their opposition and it clearly intimidated Democrats in my opinion.

in 2004 after Bush was re-elected I was sitting in my car listening to the news on the radio.Flipping through the stations I heard Sean Hannity telling his audience not to celebrate too long because they were needed back in the trenches asap to stop Hillary Clinton in 2008, "the Battle to stop Hillary starts right now!" I heard similar statements from Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. Conservatives are good at the long game. They are good at spending years attacking someones character so that they seem too damaged overtime. I preferred Obama to Clinton but in all honestly I must admit that the constant drumming of Hillary Clinton helped Obama in the primary. He was new and the right hadn't spent years assassinating his character. The water wasn't dirty around Obama like it already was around Clinton. I think the same can be said for Bernie Sanders in 2016. The Right had not and did not invest in impugning Sanders which allow Sanders to seem more honest, new, and clean. People grow fatigued of the same old arguments. The right takes advantage of that. Currently the right see Warren as trouble. They see her as formidable in 2020 so they are beating it into their supporter heads now that she is bad. They will surely throw loads of money against her in 2018 hoping to damage her senate re-election bid.By the time 2020 rolls around they (the right) hope Warran will seem divissive and scandal ridden. I think it is also worth considering that Trump and his people seldom to never attack Bernie Sanders. When they do mention Sanders it is normally in the context of how poorly he was treated by the DNC. This is intentional. They want Sanders to remain an unsoiled scandal free character that hopefully will divide progressives.

How does things contribute to this discussion? The topic whether or not Jesus was a real historical person.

@Paymander, "A wealth of evidence does not necessarily settle matters, when human ingenuity is interpreting the facts." that is a good qoute. One of the major hurdles to the historicity of Jesus is that to Christians as a matter of faith Jesus simply had to have existed. Without a physical Jesus Christianity's teachings can't be true. As stated previously though lots of religions exist with made up origins. Christians exist, that is a fact. Whether or not Jesus existed is a different question yet for a Christian impossible to separate. If I started a thread specifically asking about of the historicity of Moses or Noah I think it would have spurred less debate. Moses and Noah are important to Christianity but don't need to be lierally affirmed. Many more people are open to viewing the story of Moses and Noah as parables. Jesus however, in Christian belief, cannot be a parable. He must be literal. That makes this discussion hard because so many are unwilling to separate Jesus from the Bible. The story of Jesus says he was born of a virgin birth, is both God's son and God in human form, perfect, lived a sinless life, was killed and then resurrected. Jesus perfomed miracles, had visions, was the realization of prophecy, with return again, and etc, etc,etc. NONE of that is what this thread is about yet obviously in a literal sense none could have happened unless Jesus was first a real person. So it is tough. The question I am asking about Jesus doesn't attempt to answer any religious questions yet to a Christian it absolutely does. Christianity exists, that is a modern fact, that isn't changed the historicity of Jesus. So this discussion is stuck a loop. Non contemporary religious texts from Chrsitian writings keep being brought up as evidence that Jesus was real. However if we look back to the OP the question isn't about Chrsitian writings. Jesus is real because the gospels say so simply isn't good evidence. Constantines converting to Christianity and venerating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre some 300 years after Jesus is said to have lived and no archeologists have verified the site isn't good evidence. Atleast not of a real life man. Perhaps of a storied religios tradition but the 2 simply are not the same. You keep bring up Edgar Cayce and I am trying to ignore it for the most part. As with Atlantis Cayce would require his own thread. I do not believe Cayce, Nostradamus, Jean Dixon, Miss Cleo, or etc could see, know, or predict anything. If I wrote down hundreds of predictions a day for 30yrs I think it is fair to assume thousands of them would come true provided those predictions were grounded in what I already know about history and human nature. Cayce is not proved and there for can't be used to prove Jesus, Atlantis, or anything else.

@Raider5678, how are we evaluating logical ability vs instinct? Do you have a ideal example/model for either? I think it can be argued that human's are not logical. While we are really good at problem solving we are equally as bad at it. With the knowledge we have at our disposal things like hunger and war shouldn't exist. We have the know how to ensure safety and security for every human on earth and don't. Humans make illogical choices for themselves and others constantly. Every time we drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, assault one another, kill, and etc. We error so greatly because of emotions/instinct? Despite or knowledge attainment we still are destroying the very environment we need to exist. It is very illogical. We value the skills we (humans) excel at. So we assume we are the most intelligent and logical because we can built tools and have language but those are things we care about. Other intelligent life may value others things which we do not. They may consider us to be purely instinct driven. It is all relative to a large extent. All life which we are aware of is confined to a physical body. We all have basic needs determined by our physical bodies. We all inherit natural characteristics and behaviors (instincts) as a result. It isn't always clear when one is operating with individual choice vs instinct. Because of that I don't think intelligence/logic vs instinct is a good measuring stick for being sentient. Additionally, in my opinion, being aware of self and being aware of the reasons behind every action and or choice aren't one in the same. From addiction, attention deficit, to acts of rage humans have many behaviors we are unable to consciously control or full understand. I don't believe free will is a requirement of being self aware. In my opinion to be sentient the only requirement is to be aware and to be aware the only requirement is an independent concept (instinct, emotion, logical, etc) of self.

Now, in an interview with the associated press released Sunday, Trump set a new standard of hubris even for himself — comparing his ratings prowess to one of the darkest days in U.S. history: Sept. 11, 2001. “It's the highest for 'Face the Nation' or as I call it, 'Deface the Nation,' " Trump told the AP's Julie Pace, referring to the CBS News Sunday political talk show. “It's the highest for 'Deface the Nation' since the World Trade Center — since the World Trade Center came down.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/24/trump-boasts-of-highest-tv-ratings-since-the-world-trade-center-came-down/?utm_term=.e31da377792c#comments Inboasting about his TV ratings Trump is provided strong anecdotal evidence for a point I attempted to make a couple months ago. Fact checking Trump doesn't work. All press is good press. So long as Trump can control the topic he doesn't care if the headlines are positive or negative. Rather than the meida giving Trump headline after headline when he lies about wiretaps, Susan Rice,and etc the media should just ignore it. By reporting on it they are allowing Trump to control the narrative. There are so many issues that simply get zero attention because everyone is too busy giving their type to Trump lies. Meanwhile Trump loves it!!!

"While it is archaeologically impossible to say that the tomb recently uncovered in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the burial site of an individual Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth, there is indirect evidence to suggest that the identification of the site by representatives of the Roman emperor Constantine some 300 years later may be a reasonable one. The earliest accounts of Jesus' burial come from the Canonical Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, which are believed to have been composed decades after Christ's crucifixion around A.D. 30. While there are variations in the details, the accounts consistently describe how Christ was buried in a rock-cut tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jewish follower of Jesus. Archaeologists have identified more than a thousand such rock-cut tombs in the area around Jerusalem, says archaeologist and National Geographic grantee Jodi Magness. Each one of these family tombs consisted of one or more burial chambers with long niches cut into the sides of the rock to accommodate individual bodies." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/jesus-christ-tomb-burial-church-holy-sepulchre/ Researchers haven't been provided full access to investigate the site. If the site is verified it would be terrific evidence. However, it currently isn't verified. The site hasn't even been dated. I am sure you are aware most of the Church was built some 300yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived by Constantine. Additionally it isn't the only site thought to be the possible burial site. There is also "The Garden Tomb". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_Tomb

I used Plato as an example because Pymander has referenced Plato. Obviously famous people are easier to verify. However there are many nonfamous people through history we have contemporary evidence for in the form of grave sites, things they wrote, and etc. We just don't spend time on school learning every name which has been unearthed archaeology. Museumsare full of artifacts which prove the existence of average everyday people from thousands of years back. If I say there is not any contemporary evidence and then someone points out that Jesus wasn't famous at the time of his death that doesn't change the fact that we have no contemporary evidence. Explaining reasons wahy no contemporary evidence is available doesn't change the fact that none is available. Jesus had followers and a message. Had Jesus ever written anything, even a letter to a friend, it isn't inconceivable his followers would have kept it. Jesus was important enough to enough people it isn't unreasonable to imagine someone would want to have kept something of his or write his name on something. The Holy grail, for example, would be contemporary evidence if it existed. If the gospels bother to say where the grave Jesus was initial buried in that potentially could be evidence if found. You are right that Jesus wasn't famous as Plato but that doesn't mean we should just assume there would be nothing. After all he was important enough that word of his existence (if he existed) spread and stayed alive until decades later to be written about in the gospels. Form those decades we are to accept no one literate bothered to write anything? I don't mean to imply that there should be contemporary evidence. Rather I am saying it is well within possibility.

There is absolutely contemporary evidence available for many historical figures. To imply otherwise simply isn't true. Asking for contemporary writings or artifacts from the time Jesus is said to have lived is not a tall order. Such evidence exists for individuals who came long before Jesus. You have been referencing the work of Plato for example. Plato was something like 500yrs before the time Jesus is said to have lived. Plato wrote things, his contemporaries wrote about him in real time, art was made in real time of him, and etc, etc, etc.

There have been many islands and land bridges lost to time. The stories of Atlantis absolutely can be based on a real place. Just as there have been many preachers who have claimed to be sent by god. Jesus absolutely could have been a real person. However, what could have been isn't what is being discussed. This thread is asking for specific proof that Jesus was a flesh and blood human. I am not asking is Jesus was sent by god, was god in human form, if Christianity is correct, or etc. You are correct that I don't care about Atlantis. That isn't what with thread is about. Start an Atlantis thread and I promise I'll post in it. My point about Atlintis relates to the way history is proved. What evidence is required to prove different place, people, or events existed. The bible is not contemporary to Jesus. None of the gospels were written by people who met a Human who was Jesus. The Gospels are second hand (at best) accounts.

Why can't U.S. officials speak with them?

1 - Atlantis is said to have been a physical place. Finding that place, geological evidence of where such a place was, or artifacts from that place is the best evidence. That is it. Some historical figure provided a 2nd or 3rd hand account isn't best evidence of a physical place. 2 - The existence of a religion isn't proof of a religion's history of teachings. Scientology exists but that doesn't put the onus on me or any other non Scientology follower to disprove anything. Mormons exist and have tens of millions of followers all over the world. That doesn't mean the onus is on me to prove Joseph Smith didn't speak to a golden salamander and that Jesus didn't come to North America. Many realigions have made up origins. The existence of a religion doesn't prove a religions teachings.

Japan not have Nukes isn't matter of capability. It is relevant. North Korea doesn't become superior overnight just because of one or two devices. North Korea ballistic abilities are low and Japan defense system are tops. - How will Japan and South Korea will react is a question with a diplomatic answer and not justification for preemptive war. Such talks are underway currently and that is good. "TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Senior officials from Japan, the United States and South Korea will hold a meeting Tuesday to discuss ways to curb North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said Friday. The talks in Tokyo will be held between Kenji Kanasugi, director general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, Joseph Yun, U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, and Kim Hong Kyun, special representative for Korean Peninsula peace and security affairs at the South Korean Foreign Ministry." - How China will react to a Nuclear Japan and/or South Korea is another Diplomatic question and not a justification for preemptive war. The questions also assumes a response from Japan and South Korea which isn't yet known. I think the U.S., South Korea, and Japan need to sit downand answer your first question before your second question can be adressed. The paradox this thread is referencing is the one where Nuclear armed countries like U.S., Russia, and China get to butt in all over the world without threat of attack in part because they are so heavily armed yet demand others not to emulate. We (U.S.) would never just declare an interest in attacking a nuclear armed country and deploy our Navy while randomly tweeting big stick threats. If North Korea was already fully nuclear capable we would be treating them with far more respect which is part of the reason they want nukes so bad. It is a catch 22. Ultimately only the U.S. has ever used Nukes and realistically the world community won't tolerate anyone using Nukes. If North Korea attempted to launcha Nuclear weapon at Japan or South Korea every country in the world would team up against North Korea. The tit for tat position that South Korea needs Nukes if North Korea has Nukes is not reflective of the political realities around the world. That said North Korea isn't there yet and we still have options other than War. Threatening war as the first and preferred option only reinforces Kim's reason for wanting Nuclear weapons. We won't even talk to North Korea directly. Zero diplomacy. Even during the Cuban missile crisis we spoke to Russia. How about we make a few phones calls before launching anymore warships.

You are seriously down playing Japan's nuclear potential. They already have delivery systems in terms of carriers, subs, and aircraft in addition to materials. They are closer to having usable accurate Nuclear ballistics than North Korea is. Japan has been capable to build Nuclear ballastics for decades. Saying they don't have nuclear capability at their disposal is like saying a person in possession of a full whiskey bottle doesn't have the means to get drunk because he hasn't opened the bottle yet. They could assemble devices (nurmerous) at anytime. The choose not to assemble for a myriad of reasons. You are overstate the protection provided to them by the U.S.. No nation has suffered more in the nuclear age than Japan, where atomic bombs flattened two cities in World War II and three reactors melted down at Fukushima just three years ago. But government officials and proliferation experts say Japan is happy to let neighbors like China and North Korea believe it is part of the nuclear club, because it has a "bomb in the basement" -- the material and the means to produce nuclear weapons within six months, according to some estimates. And with tensions rising in the region, China's belief in the "bomb in the basement" is strong enough that it has demanded Japan get rid of its massive stockpile of plutonium and drop plans to open a new breeder reactor this fall. Japan signed the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which bans it from developing nuclear weapons, more than 40 years ago. But according to a senior Japanese government official deeply involved in the country's nuclear energy program, Japan has been able to build nuclear weapons ever since it launched a plutonium breeder reactor and a uranium enrichment plant 30 years ago. Related Story: Japan Producing Huge Stockpile of Plutonium "Japan already has the technical capability, and has had it since the 1980s," said the official. He said that once Japan had more than five to 10 kilograms of plutonium, the amount needed for a single weapon, it had "already gone over the threshold," and had a nuclear deterrent. Japan now has 9 tons of plutonium stockpiled at several locations in Japan and another 35 tons stored in France and the U.K. The material is enough to create 5,000 nuclear bombs. The country also has 1.2 tons of enriched uranium. Technical ability doesn't equate to a bomb, but experts suggest getting from raw plutonium to a nuclear weapon could take as little as six months after the political decision to go forward. A senior U.S. official familiar with Japanese nuclear strategy said the six-month figure for a country with Japan's advanced nuclear engineering infrastructure was not out of the ballpark, and no expert gave an estimate of more than two years. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isn-t-happy-n48976 As for Trump using bluffs to force China to the table you haven't addressed what happens if and when the bluff is called.

That may or may not be entirely the case. Either way it is a good reason for POTUS not to be threatening to act alone and indicating an arbitrary sense of urgency. From Taiwan to the disputed South China sea islands there are many foriegn isues to be dealt with and over playing our (USA) hand on North Korea might create a cascade of negative outcomes.

1- Japan has everything it needs material wise for nuclear weapons and already has all the delivery systems they need. Japan has 3 Aircraft Carriers, 17 Subs, over 40 Naval destoryers, hundreds of fixed land based rocket systems, hundreds of jetfighters, and etc. They have one of the top 10 most capable militaries in the world. Far superior to North Korea's. Saying Japan are under our protection is an oversimplification and not accurrate in my opinion. In post #47 you said it was a regional balance of power thing. North Korea wouldn't become more powerful than China or Japan simply by having a couple of nuclear weapons nor would North Korea be in a position to successfully invade South Korea. I understand that the fear is that North Korea might suicidally choose to launch nuclear weapons at their enemies. However that is a fear everyone lives with. The Indians fear Pakistan launching and vice versa. We (U.S.) fear Russia or China launching and so on. What give us the right to preemptively invade another country and dictate to them who their leaders will be and what weapons they can have? If North Korea was involved in a civil war or proxy war like we are see in Syria, Yemen , and Somilia than there would be preemptive justification because of the likelihood that WMBDs would be used. Assad gas people for example. However that isn't the case. Is simply not wanting countries we don't like to have things justification enough to kill? If so does that mean Iran is next? and would North Korea even want nuclear weapons if not for the fact that they not having them invites preemptive attack. Because countries with Nukes are treated with more respect than countries without. We are sort of upping the value of nukes by being flagrantly aggressive as we are. Kim Jung Un surely believes that he would be treated more diplomatically if he had nukes. 2 - Suggesting we use the threat of force to push China is not equal to saying we are justified to invade North Korea. If you are saying that you do not want the U.S. to invade but rather are hopeful that all the saber-rattlng is a bluff to get the China's attention and put them to work diplomatically than I half agree. We should be leaning on China here. What happens if North Korea and or China calls the bluff though?

"More than 20 million people are facing famine in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and northeast Nigeria, aid agencies say. Cholera is on the rise in Somalia, where drought is driving people to flee in search of water, said Bruce Orina, the Red Cross’s deputy regional director for Africa. At least 300,000 malnourished children are trapped by fighting in Nigeria. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/africa/famine-yemen-somalia-red-cross-relief.html Unbearableconditions exist all over the world. The amount of money it costs to wage war could easily feed the 20 million people facing famine in Yemen, Somalia, South Suden and Northeast Nigeria. You aren't attempting to explain why it is North Korean which must be addressed with force at this time. Rather you keep indicating that Kim Jung Un is bad. China has Nuclear Weapons, Japan is a defacto nuclear weapon state as they (Japan) has all the materials and tech to build nuclear weapons at any time, and the U.S. has bases in South Korea and Nuclear armed war ships and Subs off the Coast. North Korea is surrounded by Nuclear capable countries. I don't see how the balance of power is altered. It isn't as if North Korea could invade South Korea. Not with the U.S. in DMZ and along the coast. This situation has been ongoing for decades. Things were heightened in the 90's over a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor, heightened again during the Bush years when he labeled then one of the "Axis of Evil", then steeper sanctions put in place under Obama, and now Trump threatening war. Each U.S. President has put their our signature on the situation. Simply listing all the ways the situation is bad doesn't justify a preemptive war in my opinion. Things are bad in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, and etc, etc, etc but we aren't about to roll in forces to remove leaders.

USA is a lesser of evil than many countries. I don't see how that justifies USA entering a preemptive war of choice. It isn't as though war is upon us and everyone must choose a side. We (USA) have a table full of options and nothing is forcing us to use force.