Peterkin

Depends where they live. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/primary-types.aspx I very much doubt it was Republican crossovers who put Biden in line for the presidency. They would have supported a candidate who couldn't beat theirs, rather than the one with the best chance. Still, once they registered as Democrats, maybe they felt differently about Trump. You just never know.

Are we talking about the nomination or the election this time around? After each person who wishes to run for an office is deemed eligible, has established a campaign committee, submitted the relevant legal forms and and paid the filing fee for candidacy, they begin by running in primaries where party members (those card-carrying ones; It might be self-defeating to let in the opposing party's members) vote for delegates in each state (delegates may be pledged of unpledged - 'super' ones, important enough party members to use their personal judgement over their constituents', and then these delegates vote at the nominating convention. All these events have to organized by a coherent body, which is the national convention committee for each party; all these candidate selection procedures are carried out under their auspices. There are all kinds of ways in which the caucus is able to influence who qualifies and who is finally nominated. The process itself is by-and-large democratic, but very much party-restricted up until the campaign between each party's nominees. Fine. I'm reasonably sure he won't want to put himself through that wringer again - supposing he survives this term. I sometimes wonder how not following leads to conclusions of such acuity.

Yes, I heard you the first time. You used the correct adjective for the judgment of the DNC, but misapplied it to election itself. Has this not been covered sufficiently?

While by definition 'impeachment' can mean any sort of indictment, in the political arena, it's generally used to refer to a proceeding to show cause why an office-holder should be removed. So, that doesn't apply, unless Trump holds an elected office of which he is proven unworthy. (And, obviously, if he were to attain that office again, there soon would be nobody left to impeach him.) So it has to be criminal charges that stand up in a court of law, just as with any other citizen. I don't know what the charges will be, but the statute of limitations normally begins at the completion of the crime and runs five years; that is, if prosecution is not begun within that period, it's too later to file charges. In this case, whatever the crimes listed in the indictment, I believe they must relate directly to the responsibilities of the office, and there must be conviction before the next election, to disqualify him. (Not sure about the last bit; US law is a bit fuzzy where it's founded in the constitution, rather than legal precedent.)

The proceedings last night were not concentrated on inciting to violence; that had already been covered. They were focused on dereliction of duty. They made the case very well; I thought Kinziger's summation was particularly effective. The DoJ won't act on any case that it's not sure of winning, so the evidence has to be complete, impeccably presented, perfectly packaged and tied up with big pink bow. I think the committee is covering each and every aspect of his wrongdoing, one session at a time.

If everything in the universe regarding which a person or persons may be uncertain is classified as 'questionable' then the word 'questionable' as commonly used, i.e: doubtful, dubious, problematic, not affording assurance of the worth, soundness, or certainty of something then the word is of highly questionable value in language. Anyway, the people who subscribe to the 'stolen election' story are not questioning [seeking evidence as to factual state of the subject at issue]; they are idly doubting on the basis of a thoroughly and publicly disproved lie.

An article about the opinion of people who have been misled is not evidence that an election result is questionable. That result has already been decided in 50 courts, 50 states and a federal government. It is evidence of effective propaganda and the gullibility of humans.

Not without you understanding the structure of DNA, its sequencing and identification of markers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing

May one ask? What is a 'centrist' policy? Or a 'centrist' vote? Is anybody at the actual center of anything - assuming anything non geometric has a locatable center? If we define 'moderate' to mean reasonable, careful, tepid, rather than half-way between the currently presented alternatives, it probably would describe the older Democrats. Many of the young one, who might actually get something done given their head, are neither moderate nor half-hearted. Even if 40% of people think the moon is made of cheese, they can be deluded, misinformed and dead wrong. Even if 99.8% of the people sincerely believe Earth is flat, they're still wrong.

Comparison with samples on file. The name and grouping of a particular Homo subspecies has been reasonably well established, but since there is evidence of interbreeding at many stages of the evolutionary process, and since new finds and methods do still keep intruding, the lines are not drawn in thick black crayon. Matters are complicated by the fact that few specimens yield usable DNA. However, the H. neanderthalensis fossil library is quite extensive, so there are lots of partial and intact skulls, teeth, as well as other bones and complete skeletons of different individuals, their group characteristics are quite well documented. So, when one of those bones, or a new one that matches, has enough DNA, the information is added to the database. By now, the genome has been reliably sequenced and available for comparison. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031459/

Eureka! Found another one! I'll try to find some way to survive it.

Only you didn't say "Nominated with questionable judgment"; you said "questionably elected" Two very different matters.

There's no question that there was pervasive and blatant voter fraud, suppression and intimidation. Biden won in spite of it: no question about that.

Well! She grew up unexpectedly normal-looking, didn't she?

There is a considerable amount of Neanderthal material available for study - fossils found as far back as the early 19th century. Plenty of information to be gathered. Teeth are usually a good source of ancient DNA, as are intact long bones. Not only that, there is a lot of associated artefact - tools, weapons, burial pits, etc. which tells us more about how they lived. Here's a start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_fossils

Then comes the fun part of examining the bone itself. Comparison with other remains, size and shape, chemical analysis, sometimes DNA - or at least bits of DNA - can be extracted, growth pattern, rigidity, thickness - all kinds of clues. If you're interested in entry level forensic anthropology, you might check out this BBC program https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11657912/, runs on all the public tv networks.

Seriously? A Trumpet? General comment: It's not unusual for basal cell carcinoma to recur, even several years after successful treatment. And it's quite standard for cancer patients to consider their condition on-going for five year observation period after they are 'cured'. Whether he had basal cell or squamous cell (the two common types of skin cancer) it's not entirely inappropriate to refer to it in the present tense. Neither one is debilitating; neither effects the patient's mental or physical capability.

Neither. They both succeeded brilliantly in what they intended to do. That's the most profound comment you have contributed to this whole thread.

We could debate whether that includes any nation. And there certainly are wrongdoers in every walk of life. As a category, politicians may not be spontaneous, but I believe their general willingness too compromise principle in favour of popularity, as well as their record of corruption and breach of trust is rather higher than that of medical personnel. If you were to attend the weekly morbidity conference at any general hospital and compared it to a senate committee hearing, you might learn the difference between the standards to which doctors and lawmakers hold their own profession. No, they didn't simply plant a flag. Statesmen and generals do that. Medical practitioners earn trust through achieving desired results - like helping people live longer with less pain.

And 7 or 8, given male rights and female subservience as legislated in the Medieval South, cost even more. You really have no data-base for this subject, have you? Economics - not mine; capitalist society's - does play a part, pushing poor women with unwanted children deeper into poverty https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/06/united-states-poverty-rate-for-every-group/40546247/ Social dynamics do, as well. The mother - never mind whether she got pregnant by rape and was given no options - has a baby, or more than one, no available childcare, maybe a husband with substance problems who beats her and the kids and can't hold down a job - has to try to juggle one or more part-time jobs with looking after the kid she can't afford to feed or house properly, so it's sick half the time, and no way in hell can she afford medical insurance, so she has to keep lugging it to the free clinic, however far away that is, since the holy moral government closed most of them down for giving birth control advice to people like her, and sit for hours in the waiting room - if there are chairs to go around - so of course she misses a shift and gets fired. Now she and the child or children are living in the street. Not the first time a society has treated its lower classes this way. We had hoped it wouldn't come around again. Oddly enough, that's what I've been wondering about your support for the control of medical treatment by "moral lawmakers" .

That's understandable. It made more sense in the context of a reply to someone [J.C.MacSwell] urging citizens to accomplish two opposites over neither of which they have control. The only thing that could save the US from sliding over into failed status is a progressive Democratic majority with the popular mandate and the courage to enact massive electoral reform, tax reform, judicial reform and administrative restructuring. I see no clear path from here to there.

and my opinion was not FTR

I am not alone in this opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/01/us-politics-state-government-democrats-left ...which is touching in its irony, given that and tossed at various other countries, including their own puppet governments, with gay abandon by American politicians ever since.

The moral position of their constituents was the prevailing status quo prior to the co-opting of governments and courts by a right-wing minority. That is what has just been overturned. I was 'there', had a small part in getting the rest of my country 'there' and to a large extent am still 'there', even though our health-care system is collapsing. As illustrated by which of my statements? And not evident in which of the US Supreme Court's and US state legislatures' decisions? And why need these restrictions be imposed by ignorant outsiders with no stake in the outcome? Why cannot an informed, impartial medical ethics board set the terms and conditions of doctors' authority? Why cannot a woman be guided by her own moral code, rather than Abraham's? (He wasn't all that nice to his own bastard or its mother... having piously made sure it was borne to term. And the "moral" US legislatures are meting out similar treatment to their servant-class women.) How does this follow? All kinds of killing of humans by humans is done all the time, in every country - some countries more than others, some countries, a lot more. It's done for a great variety of reasons. Infanticide is typically done for one of two reasons: pity for a suffering baby, or despair in a girl who was denied protection or help by her community. Less commonly, an extreme emotional state brought on by sleep-deprivation, frustration and anxiety, which culminates in a single drastic act of blind rage. Sometimes jealousy, revenge or anger against one adult by another, with the baby as mere instrument. Sometimes greed, sometimes convenience, sometimes pathology. The only way in which abortion laws affect infanticide is that outlawing abortion invariably raises the incidence of the first three reasons for infanticide - mercy, despair and loss of control - as well as perinatal mortality rates. Infanticide will definitely rise as a result of these recent legislations, as will suicide and domestic violence, including child battery. The way that legislators could reduce perinatal mortality and morbidity, as well as infanticide, child neglect and abuse, would be to allocate resources to pregnancy prevention, prenatal health care - including an informed choice* of termination - post-partum support and child wellness programs. (They know this, but don't care.) *Choice - and this is the most willfully overlooked aspect of the issue - implies other options. Rather than the simple extremes of abort whatever quality of foetus or carry it to term, choice would also include to abort a defective foetus, but carry a healthy one to term with the expectation that its needs will be met, and that the mother's needs will be met, whether she keeps the baby or not. Where the choice is between abortion, with at least a chance at autonomy, or motherhood as a miserable outcast, infanticide begins to look like a reasonable option. It's damn close to that tipping-point, yes.

There is that "you" again. No, he cannot. No voter can. All the law needs to do is protect citizens from predation by other citizens. That doesn't require meddling in the treatment decisions of individual patients. Doctors and nurses have their own code of ethics and are quite capable of maintaining professional standards in their ranks. Legislation is required only in the allocation of resources to serve the public well-being. (It would also be nice to have in the organization of national and local response to emergencies... but, alas!) All or none of what? Reasonable laws and guidelines have been in effect for about 50 years, in most civilized countries. People are upset, because that reasonable state of affairs has been upset. With me, it's neither: I'm an onlooker. Yes. You want lawmakers to control medicine according to their own moral position, and somehow exert this control without taking it away from doctors and patients. That's exactly as clear as wanting individual voters to correct flaws in an electoral process that has already been damaged beyond repair. Any other pairs of opposites you while you're prescribing?