MigL

If it was that simple, MonDie, that you could judge all people of a nation based on the actions of their Prime Minister, or President, I would have to call all my American friends on this forum, 'lying, corrupt, ignorant, orange-haired buffoons'. But I know D Trump is not representative of all Americans. Not even most Republicans.

I don't follow John... "But the really silly idea is that her action several years before the child was born counts as endangering the child" Actions have consequences. Sometimes there is a delay in the consequences. I might choose to, and am responsible for, getting drunk. If I then drive, and hit a pedestrian several hours later, I am still responsible for having gotten previously drunk. If I build an unsafe house, and several years later, it collapses and kills a child, am I not responsible for being negligent and endangering that child ? I am the one who would have endangered the child, not society. The fact that her actions put her child in a disadvantaged situation is no reason to absolve her guilt by making society feel sorry for her, as Dimreepr seems to be suggesting. ( and if I have that wrong dimreepr, perhaps you can stop with the one-liners, and elaborate )

Maybe they should add the charge of negligence or child endangerment to the list of many charges against her. If she had stayed in England, the National Health system would have looked after her baby and I'm sure it would have survived her stupidity. When did society become responsible for people's stupidity ? Is there no personal accountability anymore ? IOW, why does Dimreepr expect everyone to feel responsible because the mother was negligent ? ( compassion is one thing, but culpability and excusing the behavior are totally different ) But that's just the opinion of a foreigner.

You haven't listed any ACTUAL discrepancies. And no, discrepancies in your mind due to insufficient knowledge, are NOT actual discrepancies.

That is a 'realistic' objective Ten oz. Winning the Presidency, which gets rid of D Trump, will no doubt better the country. But we should not forget that the primary objective of any politician SHOULD BE the betterment of the country and its people, not simply winning elections. That mindset has soured a lot of Americans ( and Canadians ) on career politicians, who will promise anything to win the election, but then do as they please. And a little of that particular mindset helped get D Trump elected in the first place.

No, go out and get some sun. It'll 'brighten your day'.

I don't think so, but others on this forum may have differing opinions.

Nobody is born with friends. You make them by being pleasant to people, and not being obnoxious. It really is that simple.

You guys are 'quitters'. Isn't there always something else you want to do ?

Nice link INow. Didn't think Wiki would have an entry listing all candidates already.

Exactly how many are in the running now ? And, if too many, do they risk 'diluting' the message ? Would it be better to have just a few 'strong' candidates, or a lot, with differing agendas ?

I don't know whether I gave Dimreepr the +1 or J Jefferies. ( or neither messenger, but the message ) I have never argued against the rule of law. That's what separates us from the ISIS a*sholes.

So why isn't this J Wohl guy getting buried under a pile of libel lawsuits ? Surely these lies aren't protected by 'free speech'.

Have C Booker and K Harris suffered in polling due to their rush to support J Smollett's fabricated assault story ?

Yeah, you guys go ahead and make jokes... But in 20 yrs time, when they are no longer palatable, the mods may have to hide them.

I don't know about 'entitled to settle where she chooses', John. How many Germans were allowed to settle in England after WW2 ? Or even German Jews ( surviving ones ), after WW2 ?

You gotta love this... Two Canadians and one American discussing what to do about the dangerous political climate in the US. Are no other Americans besides Ten oz concerned about the level that political violence has been ratcheted to under D Trump's watch ? Why do some Americans think it's OK to threaten their fellow citizen's lives if they don't get their way ? Have American politics moved so far past discussion, that violence is the only choice left ? And is there a possibility of going back to saner times once D Trump is out ?

If you don't, you are free to not participate. It would be appreciated by some.

Brevity and sarcasm. No wonder no-one knows WTF you're talking about half the time.

Oh, I see, Dimreepr is trying to repeal Dunning-Kruger. When you make stupid choices in your life, everyone else is responsible for the consequences. No wonder some people never learn from their mistakes. They are never held accountable, so they never have to. And in cases of war, John, the participating states grant their combatants some leeway in what would otherwise be considered criminal. IOW killing an enemy combatant is not murder; hadn't you noticed ? Even if ISIS was a state... If she is not a combatant, she can't use that defense and must face the music for any crimes committed. If she is a combatant, she is a prisoner of war, and can be repatriated with ISIS once a peace treaty is signed. Either way, she has some acts to answer for.

John Cuthber: "Bring them back and take them to court" According to Dimreepr, 'very coherent'. Me: "I say let them come back, have a trial, and jail them for any crimes" According to Dimreepr, 'the definition of prejudice'. All because my 'subtext is pretty clear'. I think you'd better look up the definition of 'prejudice', Dim. ( you can't blame this on stuck keys on your keyboard )

Your terse posts are really starting to annoy, Dimreepr. Care to explain what exactly, is prejudicial about the sentence in my post which you highlighted ?

So, he is in American custody in Guantanomo, CharonY, where he is interrogated by CSIS operatives. He relays certain information to the CSIS operatives, who, in turn, are compelled by treaty, to hand over this information to the Americans. And, Guantanomo being American territory, they are free to dispense justice, based on that information, as they see fit. I guess I'm no Supreme Court Justice, because that's how I interpret events.

Of course they do. But that doesn't mean they are not 'political'. IOW, I don't agree with their decision. ( but I'm just a shmuck on a forum )