Ten oz

You are missing the point. The President and his inner circle have the ability to game the system. In the past Trump has lashed out at govt contractors like Boeing, trading partners, and threatened to pass legislation which he either has no power to do or true intention. As the market moves he and his cohorts can be buying and selling with impunity profiting off the office of President's ability to impact markets. Insider trading is a crime.

In the U.S. the govt puts out recommendations. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executive-summary/ I think a simply google search would answer your question for the most part. Are you looking for something more, are you trying to lose weight and having a tough go? In my experience no diet is one size fits all. Everyone has a different lifestyle and people can react differently to different diets based on the natural amounts of estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, insulin, and etc in their bodies. What the correct diet for losing weight and being healthy for a 50 year old Scandinavian male might be vs a 20 year Latin female will be different. For myself I focus on the vitamin and sodium content in the food I eat. I find a lot of food is very high in sodium because it is used as a preservative and a lot of food also is very low in vitamins as a result of mass farming.

@dimreepr , no place in the definition for prophet does it mention "numbers". You are creating your own terms.

No, you absolutely are trying to grade them. Let take a step back: I said Kings can provide the same social mechanisms as a god to which you said despots seldom have a grip in morality to which I responded neither do prophets. You then challenged for one to be named. One quickly was and since you've been redefining terms. David Koresh was a prophet to those who laid down their lives for him. It does not matter whether or not you think he led a cult. Likewise Brigham Young was a prophet to those who murdered in his name regardless of you opinions of Mormons. This conversation was done soon as Moontanman named Joseph Smith. At that point your challenge was met. Their is no reason this has continued for 2 more pages.

So Islam is more of a religion than Sikhism? Which published definition for what a religion is are you referencing? Seem to me you are just moving the goal posts as you go.

Yep

It is a fine line between cult and religion. Christianity started off as a cult. Many early Christians were even put to death for what was once viewed as occultist practices. So if you are going to play "that is a cult and not a religion" it would say loads of tome if you just listed the religions you personally accept are in fact religions. *Also my post that started this exchange said "prophet" and not major religion that dimreeper accepts as such.

Not splitting hairs at all. The judicial branch should only be concerned with law and not how anyone or any party feels about the law. The legislative branch writes laws. It is the legislative branch that considers all views when writing laws. Once a law is law the judicial branch is black & white by design. In Congress members are called "representatives" because it is their job to represent their constituents. The will of a representatives constituency matters to a congressman. The only thing that is supposed to matter to a judge is the law.

I was responding to a notification. Did not see that Moontanman already referenced Smith. So I'll add David Koresh.

Joseph Smith

Prophets don't always either.

Having a King or Empire gave group guidance too. Lots of different mechanisms can be used.

Not wanting to be alone (within any specific condition) could be part of it. Seems to me that humans create subgroup identities for themselves throughout life. Even in the sandbox analogy where people point out children of all races play together regardless of race there is still agism afoot. Children seem attracted to other children. The desire to be with someone else like oneself, brotherhood's and sisterhoods, extends beyond religion race. It can be seen in sports fandom when people refer to private for profit sports organizations as, "my team" and decorate there homes with sawg. On some level being a fan of a specific team helps provide those people an identity. Likewise so too does patriotism, classism, and etc.

I did not say it was necessary. The OP isn't asking if religion is necessary. It is asking if there are any rational reasons. Shared perspective is a rational reason. I don't feel religion is necessary. The OP is asking for example of how religion can be rational. That isn't to say religious is necessary or a best way to achieve anything.

Around 150 million Chinese citizens travel outside if China per year. In China they have access to international movies, books, music, and etc. China is not North Korea. Their people do have access to information. It can be argued the access isn't as convenient or in the same abundance as elsewhere but China has been racing in the right direction. Cultural change within a society doesn't happen overnight. In my opinion it is difficult to imagine China having come any further than they have over the last couple decades considering where they were.

China has brought an incredible number of their people out of poverty over the last couple decades. No govt is perfect and globally China supports a variety of oppressive regimes but it is hard to argue that they haven't being doing right by their own people. Few, if any, countries in history have come so far so quickly. Certainly none with China's population has.

Considering the amount of uncensored propaganda out there I am not entirely sure censored internet searches are entirely worse. Depending on what one is searching for the more frequented sites or links with highest view counts can often be some if the worst sources. Just as Facebook and Twitter are struggling to combat faked accounts pedaling lies I think Google may have to consider the issue as well. We see it often here where posters will link nurmerous articles/reports which are totally wrong and full of errors yet pop up next to quality work on the same subject when one performs key word searches. I understand that in the case of China the censorship is not motivated by ensuring accurate information but rather to control govt messaging. The Chinese govt doesn't want info on the internet used against them or for their citizens to know the truth about any number of things. China's motives are wrong yet the issue of information on the internet being used to manipulate society at large is a real one. I personally don't believe the UK is dealing with Brexit or the U.S. with Trump right now if not for the successful dissemination of erroneous information on the internet. Was it un-democratic of Facebook and Twitter to allow fake accounts to share fake info in 2016? My phone's news feeds gets alerts to news articles based on what's trending but what's trending isn't equal to what's true. Often what's trending is an exaggeration or total lie. I do not agree with China but It is a complicated issue.

Republicans have have only won the popular once in the last 7 Presidential elections (2004). In 2012 Republicans won more congressional seats despite receiving less votes. In 2014 Republicans won a slim majority of votes but picked up 60% of available seats that year. They way our system is set up Democrats would need to beat Republicans by about 11% of the vote this year to win back the House. For the Senate the uphill climb is even worse. Unfortunately Republicans do not need more votes than Democrats to maintain their majority. Rather they just need to avoid losing by a whole lot of votes.

Of course Democrats earn more votes yet win less seats. Standing around in line isn't enough. It is great to see a lot of people showing interest in politics for the first time but while many of them are carrying on about Medicare for all and BUI Republicans are moving polling stations, changing the registration laws, are in court fighting for illegal districting practices , and etc. It isn't enough to show up. One needs to understand what specifically they are showing up for and thus far I don't see it on the left the way I do on the right.

We do not have to become them to defeat them. There are a million ways to stop a bad guy with intensity but none will work if none are tried. Many people want something done but assume someone else will do it. That the Mueller investigation will conclude with tangible legal action against Trump. It won't. Trump will pardon those important to him and Republican's in Congress won't move against him. This is a political fight. No legal team will be swooping in and fixing anything.

Russian intelligence services also attack the the U.S. election infrastructure targeting election machines in several keys states and stealing voter data. The scope of the election meddling is not limited to the DNC.

Public figures making public statements is not the same as illegal clandestine activity executed by military officials. Obama did not instructed the CIA to infiltrate the computer networks of pro Brexit officials, program bots to spread erroneous information throughout social media, attempt to (and perhaps accomplished) hacking voting machines, and etc. Foreign political figures can publicly chime in with their opinion all they want. It is arguably their job to do so. That is not criminal. It is criminal to breach private secured networks to steal and manipulate data. It was a low probability that Republicans could successfully block Merrick Garland from SCOTUS for a year and a low probability Trump would be elected. The right dominates all branches of govt and hold more local elected offices nationally despite consistently receiving less support, what is the probability of that? I had the displeasure of being at an event a couple weeks back where Karl Rove was on a panel taking questions. When asked about the Mueller investigation and the possibility of impeachment he laughed that holding any politician accountable for anything is always a political process and not a legal one and that Trump cannot be held accountable because his supporters are simple stronger in their support than are his detractors in their opposition. I am no fan of Karl Rove but he was right. This is a political fight and not a legal one. Trump's campaign broke numerous laws. Numerous Trump officials have already plead guilty. The legal side here is already a slam dunk but that isn't going to stop Trump from seating another SCOTUS Justice.

Just as with global warming there is a lot of propaganda out their and it is in both the financial and convenience interest of many to ignore the problem. It is too easy to just hide behind criticisms and enable the status qou to continue. The fishing industry is another example. They over fish a specific type while arguing against evidence of over fishing until all that fish are gone and then just move on to other and continue. Adopting change is harder to do than responding to crisis. When all the fossil fuels run out we will switch to alternatives. The following link goes into the environmental impact in good detail. http://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeatAlternatives.pdf

The intelligence and military communities have repeatedly labelled what Russia did an attack against the country. A president who aided and abetted in a hostile foriegn attack against their own nation is definitely worse than Watergate. Nurmerous crimes have been committed. It is lack of political will and not of sufficient laws on books or lack of procedures that prevent Trump's impeachment.

Treason is a crime and it seems that working with a hostile country to attack our constitutional election process amd infastructure fits the bill. Also when one knowingly colludes with those committing crimes it makes them an accessory to those crimes. The Russian cyber attacks we're criminal which is why there have been indictments. If Trump colluded with Russia he is an accessory to their crimes. So while "collusion" itself isn't a specific crime treason and accessory are and collusion is the proof.