zapatos

No, your heart is in your chest.

So you don't agree with your opening post?!?! Seems like you are scratching something else. What new evolved homo sapiens are you talking about? No. Check your dictionary for the meaning of those words. Yes.

How do you suppose slime molds came up with an "end goal". And what is its end goal? Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have? Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence.

Is there a replacement term, or is the 'subconscious' no longer considered a valid concept?

Psychology does. Not sure that would be considered "science".

So you are saying I would not think this is a big deal if only I better knew ballot access requirements. I would counter that you are ignoring the candidate that this issue is about. Similarly a little old lady with advanced cancer would not be as big a deal as advanced cancer in a person who has the potential in the future to impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Context matters. Again, it is a bit shocking that you cannot see that.

So if while reviewing the Colorado SC decision in the ballot case, the US Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment is not relevant to the particular set of facts regarding Trump's actions, and that the Colorado SC made a mistake, isn't that deciding an issue of fact? That Trump DID NOT engage in an insurrection as described in the Constitution?

You seem to be saying that "holding a trial" is the same as "adjudicate". I don't think that is correct, per my previous link to Wikipedia: SCOTUS does indeed resolve disputes and give formal judgements in court proceedings.

Perhaps I don't understand the term well. This from Wikipedia makes it sound like SCOTUS adjudicates. That is, they will make a formal judgement about whether or not he violated the 14h Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjudication On a side note, I thought the Supreme Court acted as trial judges when litigation begins at the Supreme Court level. Yes, I didn't say they had to be convicted of an insurrection. I said in the case of being too young or not a natural born citizen, there had to be some legally recognized documentation (or lack thereof) to support denying someone public office. A birth certificate indicating the candidate is too young for example.

Yes, until SCOTUS adjudicates one way or the other. Until then it is simply opinion by people who don't have the final say. If you are declaring someone is under 35 or not a natural born citizen, presumably it is because of the existence of legally recognized documentation. If you have no such documentation, it is "alleged".

Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President and an ex-president himself. His name is being removed for (alleged) violation of the Constitution regarding insurrection. He has 90 something criminal charges outstanding. He is trying to win the presidency in part to shut down cases that may send him to jail. This is unprecedented. Even my young grandkids realize this is a big deal.

So why does that make it "not a big deal"? Lots of things are a big deal even if they've happened to a lot of people already. Cancer for example.

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

Wow!! That was awesome!! 😃

No, they are typically retirees looking for something that lets them stay engaged in a meaningful way. The next week they'll be volunteering at the local St. Vincent DePaul Society food bank.

Thanks!

In other words, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Precisely how fast is 'fast enough'?

It is obvious unless you are purposely obtuse. You don't seem to be able to handle the level of discussion around here.

I'm glad to see you are pro-abortion.

That's a rather narrow view of the situation in the Middle East, as if all would be solved if only Hamas were not there. Hamas has only been around since 1987. It is not as if we had no issues prior to that. In addition, prior to October 7th Hamas only had the support of around 12% of Palestinians. In addition, one group of people (Israeli government) just wants the other (Hamas) gone. No compromise, no peace, no deal, nada.

As he said the problem is so intricate that people here cannot come up with good ideas for a solution.

Is your knowledge of this based on interviews with them that you read? Can you please share the details with us? How precise are the lines? Can you please share with us the measurements that were made?

As I said, that only works if both sides agree. Israel can spend all they want on the Palestinians, but if the Palestinians want Israel to die and keep lobbing missile, it won't work. The part you seem to bypass whenever you suggest alternatives to violence is that BOTH SIDES have to agree to alternatives to violence.