Ten oz

You clearly stated that fewer people are dying violently than in the past. However you are not qualifying what you mean. I don't know if by "the past" you mean 10yrs or 1,000yrs ago. Also I don't even know if the statement is true at all. I do not know that less people are dying now. It is not religious fervor; you simply are not qualifying your statements. You are treating your statements as givens yet they lack specificity or citations.

Humans have been able to identify their impact on the environment all along. Many other mammals do as well. It is one of the reasons why back when humans were still hunter gathers we'd travel throughout the year. Yes we were following the food but we were also careful not to hunt food out of existence. The tradition continues to this day among modern day hunters. Everyone understand why hunting laws restrict the killing of pregnant game animals. Just as Killer whales don't kill anymore seals than necessary. Killer Whales have even been documented helping seals to shore. As such I do not see our ability to recognize what we are doing to be progress. Especially considering how few humans care. I do not believe this at all. I think the earliest humans who cleared habitats with fire absolutely understood what they were doing. Considering we do not know when or where fire was first used as a tool by humans I have no idea how you can quantify your assertion that they didn't know what they were doing. You do not believe humans have done this all along? Why do you think human created and past down oral fables, invented philosophy, and etc. Many humans throughout history have sought to make the world a better place. Identifying injustices is nothing new. A million people commit suicide per year and there are nearly 500k murders per year. That alone doubles death be mosquito without even getting into the number killed by military conflict. https://www.befrienders.org/suicide-statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Here is the U.S. 6 million deer are hunted on average per year, a million are involved in vehicle accidents, and I don't even feel like digging up the number of livestock deer killed. Several million deer killed here in the U.S. per year far exceeds the number killed by Mountain Lions, Bears, or whatever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer–vehicle_collisions http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/rooney.html Define "the past". During different periods throughout history the number killed brutally has fluctuated. There is no trend you can show me that indicates a consistent decline by millennia. Moreover I don't even know if the total number dying around the world is even down in recent times. In Syria since their conflict began half a million have died, In Iraq over a million have died, in Afghanistan a hundred thousand, 60k dead in Mexican drug conflict over the last few years, and etc. There are thousands dying in Myanmar, Yemen, Congo, and etc.

People killing people aside Humans kill everything on the planet. We are currently living in an age of mass extinction which is a direct result of our own making. Many of the technologies we celebrate ourselves for creating directly result in the destruction of the natural world as we know it. Only with incredible hubris and little hindsight can we (humans) honestly claim to be improved over our ancestors. Knowledge is cumulative so of course there is more knowledge today than yesterday. As time passes humans will continue to have more knowledge which in turn will enable more technology. That said humans remain our own worst enemies. Nothing kills more humans per year than humans. Nothing kills more fish, whales, deer, grasshoppers, ants, and etc than humans. No other life form other than humans are actively killing the ecosystem of the whole planet. When you say there has been progress you are shuffling chair on the Titanic. Sure we stone less people to death than we use to but the trade off is now we use drones to kill people from thousands of miles away with the push of a button; progress.

Humans believe in themselves more than enough. We humans put ourselves well above all other life. The whole earth is ours and ours alone. Countless laws have been created over the millennia. People reject them, find ways around them, use them for selfish purposes, and etc. The laws you came up with are good in spirit but unenforceable and would lead to war. In fairness everything humans seem to do leads to war. Just read a few history books. Better is a relative term. Some feel humans are better today than 10,000 years ago. In some ways we are but in other ways we aren't. I would imagine ALL non-human life on Earth preferred the way humans were 10,000 years ago.

"Money is the root of all evil" is a popular saying but hardly true. Humans have been killing each others since long before a monetary system existed. Megalomania is an evolutionary trait humans need to shed. The assertion of power and dominance works well for Wolves and Lions and Humans once upon a time. Today we exist in artificially large populations and cooperation is critical. Alpha behavior is holding us back.

It really all depends on what the precipice is that begins serious impeachment discussion. Republican Senators like Corker, Graham, McCain, Rubio, Cruz, Collins, Paul, and etc have all pushed back against Trump when it suited them. In the House Ryan and the Tea Party Caucus has as well. If it was in the best interest of certain Republicans to vote to impeach Trump I believe they would. Key words being that it must be in their best interests and not necessarily the best interest of the nation. The Mueller investigation has not been riddled with leaks. The public has limited insight regarding the evidence Mueller has collected or the charges which will be coming. Trump's supporters (the Republican base) have already come to peace with Obstruction of Justice and Russian Collusion; they're over them and don't care. So Trump being indicted for either probably would not move a single Republican to vote impeachment. However we do not know if that is the limit of what Mueller has found. Mueller has looked into Trump's financials among other things and there could end up being indictments related to any number of other crimes. Crimes which partisans have not already exhausted themselves debating. New revaluations have the potential to cause many Republicans to abandon ship. The Mueller investigation is a huge X factor. To the second part of your topic; I do not believe Democrats will win enough seats to control either the House or Senate. Following the midterms Democrats will remain the minority party in the House and Senate. On the Senate side Democrats have 24 Senate seats up for election to just 8 Republican seats. Even if Democrats ran the table and won every race they would only have 57 seats which still isn't even enough to break a filibuster. Obviously they will not win every race. AZ and NV are the only 2 Republican Senate seats Democrats have a strong chance to flip. Meanwhile Republicans have a good shot at flipping Democratic seats in WV, IN, and MO. In Senate races Democrats will need lots to go right just for them to avoid losses.As for House races districts are so heavily gerrymandered I don't expect nearly enough to flip one way or the other to impact the balance of power.

Is this thread about how to impeach Trump or about how many seats Democrats can realistically gain in the 2018 midterms? The 2 issues are not the same. Even is Democrats had the majority in the House and all 100 Senate seats there is no guarantee Trump would be impeached.

You have no way of knowing there would be a shift in perception or to what degree. ISIS is a small minority yet look at all they chaos they create. So every country must choose to participate? If so than it could already exist now yet doesn't. That sort of proves countries would not choose to participate. Apple already announced it will pay 38, 000, 0000, 0000 in taxes and bring that money back. Additionally if a country like Iran can just choose not to participate what stops them from becoming a place companies store their money to avoid federation taxes? Whomever is best able to solicit the largest audience would have the power.

I agree it was ugly but that is my point. How would your system prevent something like Brexit? You've never met someone from Dallas TX apparently. So the world Federation will control the world by force? Seems more like an empire. For this thing to be truly democratic wouldn't every City-State need to choose to be part of it rather than be coerced? No I don't think. Currency manipulation, money laundering, fraud, and etc are very real problems that Govts struggle to curtail.It absolute is not easy. Govts, Corporations, Dictators, and etc are all either groups or people or individual people. At the end of the day such people would still exist.

Brexit shows the limits of the E.U. and that movement in part is because of Immigration. Also influence in the E.U. is slowly becoming centralized in Germany. Here in the U.S. there has already been one Civil War and currently the divide between various states is ever widening and immigration is front and center. The current U.S. President's entire campaign was almost exclusively about immigration and pitting individual states against each other. I think the E.U and the U.S. are examples which prove a global federation wouldn't work. Brexit is a good example of its limits. Nothing stops a city-state from walking away. From ethnic cleansing to holocausts humans have found ways to divide themselves up into camps and use those divisions to justify killing each other. Replacing nations with city-states won't change that. The Palestinians haven't had a nation of there own in a hundred years yet still consider themselves and are considered by others to be a specific group of people. What you are proposing would create situations similar to that all other the globe. Far more do not have Law Degrees. How does your plan prevent mob rule from creating law that oppress people based on gender, religion, age, and etc? If 51% of a City-State votes to ban all Christians, kill all unmarried non-virgin women, and exile everyone over the age of 70 then what? How is this enforced? Is the Federation going to have the physical military power to coerce City-States? What stops groups of City-States from banning together against others or the federation itself. You are ignoring the fact that War is right up there with fire as one of Humans earliest inventions. Revolt within the system you describe is inevitable. Direct Democracy doesn't ensure every gets what they want. It only ensures the majority do which means they will still be angry people. Enforced how? In the U.S. Marijuana is federally illegal yet people are using Marijuana in every community throughout the entire country. Marijuana is as available as Pepsi. Making something illegal doesn't automatically stop it from happening. People good, Govt bad; makes zero sense given that Govts were created by and are ran by people. If Govts suck it is because people suck.

Rachel Brand, the third-ranking official at the Justice Department, will step down from the job, NBC News reported Friday. The New York Times first reported her decision. The associate attorney general's move follows President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on the department for its role in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Crucially, Brand may have overseen special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe if Trump decided to fire deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who he has repeatedly criticized. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/09/justice-department-rachel-brand-is-stepping-down.html

Thus far technology replacing old ways of doing things hasn't impeded job growth. Any number of jobs from a hundred years have been replaced yet others created. I do not think fear of technology is reasonable. Lets use the grocery sector as an example. Many stores now have self check out machines and Amazon is testing stores that don't even use checkouts. So the argument goes that this will lead to less jobs in Grocery stores because stores will not need as many cashiers. I would argue that is inaccurate. Firstly cashiers nearly always have more responsibilities than just ringing people up. They stock product, clean, help with inventory, and etc. In the future cleaner and more organized stores will become the norm. Employees won't have to stop what they are doing every time a line of 3 or greater forms to go help check people out. Secondly stores have higher profit margins on products produced in house like salads, cakes, breads, and etc. So expect more dedicated people working in the bakery and more options at your local grocery store. Lastly delivery and meal plan services are growing. Stores will need to people to shop the store and fill personalized orders. In 5-10yrs jobs in the grocery sector will not be down. They just might be more specialized. Yes It will not lead to a pandemic. Expectations increase along with technology. Humans once drank water straight out of rivers and lakes (many still do around the world) but now demand filtered treated clean water. That demand increased what's require to treat and supply water. As expectations change new jobs are created.

Pure democracy where everyone participates always seems fair provided your side isn't a minority side. People compete to get the things they want and seldom feel they've gotten enough. When humans aren't fighting over money 'n power they are fighting over everything from sexual mates to closest parking spot. That perpetual combativeness dooms any global Democratic cooperation. We (humans) simply aren't to that level yet. Yes we are sentient but limited to perception of ourselves.

Having numerous City-States would make cooperation more difficult. People would segregate by religion, affluence, language, and etc to even greater degrees than they already do. That would create a lot of international trade and immigration/travel issues among other things. Decentralized systems tend to evolve into either centralized systems or empty tokens. The good faith required by all to follow unenforceable direction is too tenuous. City-States would just replace the concept of Nation. Everyone isn't educated or experienced enough to draft law. Even when experts do it there ends up being unexpected loopholes which lead to unexpected consequences. Allowing anyone to do based on the momentary popularity of an idea is dangerous; mob rule. Such direct Democracies schemes are extremely vulnerable to corruption and manipulation. How would this be enforced? The decentralized Federation would have to be very powerful to ensure this. More powerful than any combination of City-States and I struggle to imagine how anything decentralized would be. How would this be enforced?

I think Trump as President is proof that nothing Obama could ever have said would have made a difference to those opposed. Early last week a guy I know at told me it was undeniable Trump's policies, tax cuts specifically, were great for the economy and that despite his bad language of twitter Trump was doing a great job. I mentioned that we (USA) failed to reach GDP predictions for the 4th quarter and the deficit had grown significantly. He cited the Stock Market. I told him the Market was inflated and would fall sooner rather than later. He noted that I had been saying that since the fall and it hadn't happened yet and insisted I just was refusing to give Trump the credit he deserved. He sarcastically laughed as repeated "come on, just look at the Stock Market" . That was just last week. Today the same guy said the current correction was no big deal and was to be expected. He even used the fact I had been expecting to saying it wasn't surprising or any fault of Trump. Now I am not saying it was Trump's fault. Rather I am pointing out the obvious contradiction. When stocks are up it is proof Trump is good and caution is just Trump hatred. When stocks are down it is to be expect and unrelated to Trump. Those who support Trumpism and the Republican Party rationalize everything in their own way. Doesn't matter how careful a point is made.

This is a false comparison. No other Presidents in the modern era, or ever to my knowledge, have done this. It is unique and specific to Trump himself. There is absolutely no reason to assume there is any likelihood Clinton would have entertained such an idea. Also the criticism it not one sided partisanship as implied by your post. Many in Trump's own party have rejected the idea.

The Nuclear weapons we (USA) currently have are virtually unusable in that the entire world would turn against the U.S., or any nation, if used. Our current nuclear weapons are a tool of absolute last resort; mutual destruction. The push for these news weapons seems to be an attempt to create something to use commonly as other weapons. The idea of that is a Pandora's box.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s new nuclear strategy calls for smaller weapons designed to deter North Korea, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Wednesday. Mattis told reporters at the White House that the weapon would be used to deter one nation in particular, clearly suggesting North Korea, which has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal against the United States. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/07/new-nuclear-weapon-would-deter-north-korea-defense-secretary-mattis-says/316207002/ Dead is dead. Can't kill some one double, triple quadruple, or whatever. I do not accept the logic behind insisting that new smaller nuclear weapons will be a greater deterrent. Also the govt previously used Russia as a reason for the new weapons. I fear they're just using whatever justification feels timely. The end goal is to have a smaller more portable nuclear weapon which can be used in more contained areas with less global outcry. Problem with that is it opens the door for others to do the same. Small nuclear devices blowing up caves in Iraq and Syria may seem like a good strategic thing to do until ever mountain in the region is radioactive and children are born with terrible birth defects. The U.S. absolutely should not tread into areas we (U.S.) would decry other for.

Trump has been a public figure for 40yrs. I am unaware of him ever honoring anyone other than himself. Phi for All makes an excellent point about the rhetoric Trump has already used talking about our veterans. It is also worth pointing out that there are many veterans in the intelligence community, FBI, and DOJ yet Trump insults them endlessly.

We have veterans day and independence day. The government can ramp those days up around the country to honor military members. Presidents have a long history of go to bases on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, and etc to honor troops. That is how presidents traditionally show gratitude. They go to them and not direct them to come to him and march before White House. A parade is work and not a casual tour of the White House where the president shakes hand. Members will need to plan and prepare for this, travel, set aside other priorities, and etc for this. Forced morale isn't truly morale.

This isn't to honour military members.

It is also worth adding that spending is what sunk the U.S.S.R. during the arms race/Cold War. The U.S. currently has a trillion dollar annual deficit and spends 700 billion on Defense. Military Parades is a bad signal of hyperbolic military spending and prioritizing vs elsewhere in the economy.

I find many of the military exercises we do around the world to be a waste of resources in many cases but I at least understand the justification; improve readiness. A parade through the Capital isn't something I understand the justification for. It will cost hundreds of millions perhaps a billion dollars to do and improves nothing (readiness, diplomacy, tensions, etc). I can imagine no reason for this other than to appease Trump himself and that is a bit scary. ask not what your President can do for the country but what the country can do for it's president.

"President Trump’s vision of soldiers marching and tanks rolling down the boulevards of Washington is moving closer to reality in the Pentagon and White House, where officials say they have begun to plan a grand military parade later this year showcasing the might of America’s armed forces. Trump has long mused publicly and privately about wanting such a parade, but a Jan. 18 meeting between Trump and top generals in the Pentagon’s tank — a room reserved for top-secret discussions — marked a tipping point, according to two officials briefed on the planning. Surrounded by the military’s highest-ranking officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Trump’s seemingly abstract desire for a parade was suddenly heard as a presidential directive, the officials said" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-marching-orders-to-the-pentagon-plan-a-grand-military-parade/2018/02/06/9e19ca88-0b55-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.f6568b7d2fa3 Is a military parade down the street of Washington DC appropriate? I personally find the idea very distasteful. Such optics are ones I primarily have only seen in authoritarian regimes. The U.S. Military serves the people of the United States and are not toys belonging to the President. I do not understand what there is to gain from a large scale parade down the streets of the capital.Additionally it is an egregious waste of money. Presidential inaugurations cost an estimated 200-300 million dollars and do not include the assets which would be on display in a parade of might. At a time when Congress wrestles over the budget and every dollar is being torn in half I believe it is an insult to the nation that Trump would even entertain this.

From write offs to subsidise most companies have not been paying their full tax rates. So the tax cut doesn't actually have the impact many believe. Many companies are either not impacted or the impact is nominal. Other forces interest and bond rates matter as well. Hopefully everyone continues to read and follow along as the Market continues to decline. Profits are not equal to a companies total value. A company can make lots of money but unless it has assets (patients, real estate, equipment, etc) it isn't worth anymore than the cash it has on hand. Many profitable companies actually have low liquidity values. As a result many companies are over valued by the stock market. One big reason for their over valuations is that stocks values are often projects of future earnings. Similar to credit. Money is provided on the premise it will be returned as a greater amount. The below is a good read. Not every assumption but the overall analyse: https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment