Ten oz

White male privilage on IMAX level display. I can't imagine a woman or minority at the national level being able to behave like this. We can talk about fake news, politics being treated like sport, the lack of Civics in public education, and etc but racial identity have been the biggest issue. It is the glue that holds Trump's fake facts together and how many went about picking which team to be on. Part of the problem is pragmatic and thoughtful people are also far too polite and Trump, along with his supporters, take advantage of that.

Which is why candidates for office do things like release their taxes and answer direct questions. They work to earn the trust of voters in advance. The "Trump hasn't been convicted of a crime so we cannot investigate him " argument is absurd!!!! Citizens suspected of a crime are investigated first, arrested, charged, and given a chance to defend themselves in court. It is not conviction first investigation second. What I find most troubling about it is how unneccesary Trump's actions are. He does have a very strong base of support and currently thing are good in the country. The economy is strong. Trump could spend his first 100 days just visiting factories and talking about jobs.Taking credit for every new job and every bounce in the stock market. His approval ratings would be great right now. Congress is in GOP control so Trump will have an easy time getting most of what he wants so why rush things out with sloppy executive orders? He easy could have had the DOJ draft a travel ban with would have held up in court but chose to do it in a chaotic way. His behavior shows that he has little mental grasp on what he is doing. He is fighting battles of his own creation battling the press over crowd size, the electoral college numbers, TV ratings, and etc. His mental faculties to do the job are highly suspect in my opinion and not because I disagree with his politics but because even those who seem to agree with his politics struggle to understand and support what he is doing.

In real time as President Elect Trump tweeted "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!". Also once in office Trump was breifed about Flynns actions by acting Attorney General Yates. Soon after Trump fired Yates for not defending his Travel Ban meanwhile Flynn stayed. I don't think there is anything question here, Trump knew and approved of Flynn's actions.

@ Neuroman, Your questions seems to mostly pertain intelligence of a couscious brain altering or dimishing. Problem appears to be you are asking that question with a specific definition of consciousness in mind that isn't shared by all in this discussion. I think you are treating consciousness, brain, and intelligence as synonymous, they are not. Consciousness is simply defined as being aware, self aware. My cat is conscious. There is not a intelligence requirement for consciousness to exist. Something is either self awre our it isn't. Which is why the term unconscious exists. It is a state of being and not a state of knowing, understanding, processing, learning, doing, or etc. You said "the brain should be able to conserve its intelligence", consciousness exists within the brain and not the other way around. Memory too exists in the brain but is not stored within consciousness. The brain creates pathways between emotions, memories, things learned, and etc. Those pathways can change and like any other organ in your body diet, age, environment, etc can impact the health of ones brain.

We have all observed the influence of gravity, radition from a fire, clotting of blood, and etc, etc, etc. What exactly is science taking purely on faith? I know what temperature water freezes at because I have made ice cubes before. I know 10 times out of 10 times if I jump into the air I will fall back to the ground because I have jumped into the air and fell back down countless times. Science is testable and delivers without fail. Don't believe me, rub your hands back and forth against each other vigorously for 30 seconds and I observe friction heat up your skin. It works 100 times out of 100 times, no faith required.

Change "It is about having a comprehensive plan for the betterment of the citizens" to "It is about having a comprehensive plan for an equitable process of the citizens". And I agree 100%. The problem I have with Democracy in the U.S. is that it isn't equitable. We don't even seem to have a desire for it to be. When we say "all" people we have never truly meant "all". There have always groups we having knowingly and purposely excluded from participation. Even amongsts those allowed to vote we have communities where voting take minutes and other communities where it is a difficult all day process. An easy example of citizens we openingly and proudly don't allow to vote are those caught up in our bloated legal system. It is one thing to take the right to vote away from a murderer but we prevent millions from voting and most are not murderers, rapists, and other types of violence offenders. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html

The process was considered a Democratic one even when blacks, natives, and women weren't allowed to vote. Democracy, by most common definitions, is where power rest in the body of citizens to select their leaders. We have always called ourselves a Democracy as a point of pride but at various times have been more of an Oligarchy. One where white males held all power and made all decisions. A Democratic process that purposely restricts citizen participation in elections isn't really Democratic regardless how it chooses to label itself. That it all in the past though. Women and minorities do have the right to vote now. However state to state all that can be done bending all the rules is done to bend the rule and supress their vote. From the strict voting ID laws determined by courts to have targeted people of color in North Carolina to the registrations laws struck down in Wisconsin we still have problems. Trump even gloated after winng “The African American community was great to us,” “They came through big league. And frankly, if they had any doubt, they didn’t vote. And that was almost as good. Because a bunch of people didn’t show up, because they felt good about me.” A winning candidate in a deomocratic system should never gloat about people not voting. As a matter of respect for Democracy and our our (USA) constitution I think most accept our leaders are elected Democratically but a grey could is forming I believe. In the history of this nation only 4 Presidents have ever been elected without winning the popular vote and 2 of those in the last 16yrs. While it is technically correct per the rules outlined in the Constitution no one who signed the Constitution ever had a President who did not win the people vote. I have had two. In addition to that Republicans have been able to gain seats in Congress with less overall votes in 2012 and 2014 on the account of redistricting which made Democratic seat larger in popuation but fewer and Republican seats smaller but more abundant. Partisanship and gerrymandering are barriers/threats to Democracy that the founders themselves warned about. Both are at modern era highs currently. Could it be sour grapes, my candidate lost so I feel Democracy wasn't victorious, could be. Perhaps I am exaggerating the impact of the 84 counties in 13 states that changed the voter registration laws following the 2013 Holder vs Shelby County SCOTUS ruling that strop the voting rights act. Maybe Mitt Romney was right, corporations are people. My own bias could be showing, I concede that. However it would be dishonest of me to say I believe Donald Trump won via a fair Democratic process. I do not believe that. Not with Russia's involvement, partisan Congress's involvement ordering investigations into rival candidates, changes in voting laws, and etc. The GOP in Congress just did away with the Election Committee for goodness sakes. The system is not functioning as intended. There is a handicap in place. Republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections and are 3-3 in the popular vote ifor last 6 midterms yets control all 3 branches of govt and a majority of leadership positions at the state level. That isn't the body of the citizens electing their leaders.

I actually think the Executive Branch works. It is not perfect but it works. Where our (USA) system is broken is the legislative branch. Gerrymandering and partisanship is so bad it enables/demands trouble in the other branches. If Congress functioned ethically and honestly in the best interest of those they represent someone like Trump would either be forced by checks and balances to execute his duties ethically or be impeached. Congress does work and as a result many, some out of ignorance others out of impatience, have started looking to the White House to legislate. That isn't how our system is supposed to work. The United States is a Republic and not a Democracy.

Trump was not Democratically elected.

I think you were right the first time. Point was Trump contradicts himself a lot.

@ geordief, many of the people Trump has nominated have come out against various Trump policies. They mostly have no choice since, as you pointed out, Trump refuses to be clear on what his policies are. During the confirmation process most nominees as a matter of basic professional integrity attempt to give answers in the affirmative or the negative. Betsy Devos being an example of how a nominee is received when they fail to achieve that simple benchmark. Court appointments are for life. They are structured that ways to prevent them from being political. Judges don't have to campiagn to keep their job. So in theory they can just focus on the law and doing wht is right rather than what is popular. Of course as with anything corruption can creep in. The Republican Party has created their own interpretation of law. They have the Federalist Society which is a full network of lawyers and jduges who network together in politics and business. http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/ As for Trump's use of "biased" and "political" I think he was being fairly clear. He was saying courts in this case are politically bias. In the past he accussed a judge of being ethnically bias. In this case he is claiming it is political. It the judge was Muslim I am sure he'd claim the bias was religious.If the judge a women, sexist. Trump's arguments are not incredibly complicated. That is one of the reasons his audience likes him so much. They feel like they understand him. The nuance is all pretend. prepostion - a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause; proposition - a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. I meant prepostion but now, looking at the definitions, perhaps proposition is better? “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” “But courts seem to be so political," The proposition is the assertion that the court is "so political". That is the judgement Trumpo makes. The preposition, the preceding related to it, is that he doesn't "want to call the court bias". Please correct me if I am wrong.

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” Mr. Trump told a gathering of sheriffs and police chiefs on Wednesday in Washington. “But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban.html?_r=0 This is our new reality, preposition followed by contradiction. Trump states that he won't call the court bias then calls the court bias. Trump campaiged on a Muslim ban. Qoute from Donald Trump's own website "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration Now that he is in court and it is being made clear to him that a Muslim ban is illegal he is claim that his Muslim ban isn't really a Muslim ban. Preposition followed by contradiction. it is blatantly dishonest. Such behavior from a President is unethically unpatriotic to a level that soils the moral standing of government.

WASHINGTON — While President Trump is promising to launch an investigation into his belief that millions of illegal ballots were cast in 2016, the Republican-led House Administration Committee voted Tuesday to shut down the federal agency set up to help states improve their election systems. Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., chairman of the House Administration Committee, said the Election Assistance Commission has “outlived" his usefulness. "It is time for the EAC to be officially ended," said Harper. "We don’t need fluff." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/07/house-panel-votes-close-election-assistance-commission/97603326/ So at the same time the President claims there was millions of cases of voter fraud which led to a historic popular vote loss for the winning candidate his party removes the infstructure meant to ensure fair elections. In my opinion this is an assualt on democracy.

None, he just adds the word "extreme" to the word vetting and calls it his policy. Trump has not outlined what additional steps constitutes "extreme". As for sympathy towards Western ideals that is something he often cites but has never explained how that could/would be messured. "Two Republican senators proposed steps to slash the number of legal immigrants admitted into the United States by half on Tuesday, but the legislation, developed with the Trump administration, faces an uphill climb to get through Congress" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-senate-idUSKBN15M1VB?feedType=RSS&feedName=newsOne Conservatives have often argued in the past that they have nothing against immigrants and that they just want to make sure those who immigrate do so legally and aren't cutting in line. Their actions say otherwise. Trump's ban impacts legal U.S. residents. People who already did it thelegal way and waited in line. Now GOP members in the Senate are seeking to cut in half the number of immigrants allowed in period.

Trump will adjust the order. Basically he will dump everything but the "extreme vetting" part which is unclear enough as to mean anything. Then he will claim victory.

Regulations requiring investors to act in your best interest with regards to retirement accounts in no way shape or form limits what you can invest your money in or how much you can chooe to risk.

The president began talking about how “radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland” as they did on 9/11, in the Boston Bombings and in San Bernardino. He said it’s also happening “all over Europe” like in Paris and Nice. “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that,” Mr. Trump said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-claims-media-is-covering-up-terror-attacks/ So in addition to Trump promoting unsubstantiated claims about crowds at his igauguration, illegal voting, fake polling by media, and his conflicts of interest Mr. Trump is now claiming that the media sweeps terror attacks under the rug without reporting on them!!!! At what point does this become akin to screaming FIRE in a crowded theater? It is one thing for a uncredited blogger to promote conspiracy but for the POTUS to do so is wildly dangerous!

Which specific hyptheses in science do you think are faith based?

What evidence of this do you have? You can no more prove Moses existed than you can that he was inspired by God. Your opening statement in the OP should read "the bible states time & again we can only truly have faith in God if we believe he is revealing Himself to us". Because your entire perspective is based in faith. Moses is not a historical figure whom you can prove existed neither is Noah, Adam & Eve, or etc. The OP in this thread seems to be saying that if we choose to believe in god we can do so without allowing science to be a barrier. I agree. One can make the choice to believe in god(s) and not allow evidence to diminish ones beliefs. However the opposite is not true. In Science evidence cannot be ignored in favor of faith.

Can you prove a connection between god and the authorship of the bible? if "the bible states" is to be the foundation of an idea then the bible should at least be a known trusted source. Who wrote Genesis?

Nixon is the last POTUS impeached and removed from office. Nixon was a Republican.

If he is secretly collaborating with Russia that would be treason. Lots of reasonable suspension he is. No proof he isn't. (Let's see his taxes) His conflicts of interest may easily be bribery.(let's see his taxes) Refusing or ordering others to refuse court orders could be reviewed as high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump already seems willing to ignore court orders what is to stop him from ignoring Congress? The pattern seems to be that Trump does something unprecedented, experts debate all various legal ramifications, Trump surrogates heckle the experts, and then Trump makes another unprecedented move and the cycle continues. The OP asks what will it take. It would take an act of Congress and for now it appears Congress won't act. Inthe 2018 mid term Democrats have 23 Seats up for electionand Republicans only have 9 up. Big advance there for the GOP. In the House Democrfats would need to pick up 30 seats. That is very hard to do with all the gerrymandered districts. So Trump's position is actually fairly safe.

Yeah, as with seemingly everything Trump does there are a few different problems. The ban is concept is a win for groups like ISIS and It is a recruiting tool, restricts their victims ability to flee. The ban also fails to target countries where terrorists who have attacked on U.S. soil have been from. That raises question about the actually purpose of the ban and possible conflicts of interest Trump may have. And the manner at which the ban was ordered shows Trump doesn't understand which agencies are responsible for what nor does he appear to trust any of his own agencies.