Trump protestors

[tar]

The electoral college protects the low population states, because even if a state has 10 people they still get two senators and a house representative. Where California is a bully in the house, they are on equal footing with S. Dakota in the senate.

 

Actually a system meant to protect minorities against being bulldozed by the majority.

Edited November 12, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

The electoral college protects the low population states, because even if a state has 10 people they still get two senators and a house representative. Where California is a bully in the house, they are on equal footing with S. Dakota in the senate.

1888-1996 the candidate won won the popular vote also won the electoral college. Then in 00' the Republican candidate lost the popular but won the college and now it has happened again for the republicans. What was once a rare event seems to be become common. Also in 2012 Reuplicans lost the popular in the house by over a million votes but won over 30 more seats. This trend only inhelping one party.

 

Despite only win the popular vote once in the last 7 general elections the Republicans now control all 3 branches of govt. You don't see anything wrong with that? During the primaries you said Trump wasn't qualified to be POTUS and conceded he was a bigot and said his supporters were nuts;“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

[Delta1212]

 

Legitimacy of the election and the protests are related. Some feel we just allowed a forgien power to influence our election and that there was active voter surpression.

 

Why is it only brought up when Democrats lose? For starters that is not true. The below qoutes were both tweeted by Donald Trump on Nov. 6th 2012:

 

 

 

 

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

 

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

 

 

President that won the popular vote also won the electoral college in every election from 1888-1996. Then in 00' Bush lost the popular vote but won and now just a couple of election later it has happened again to the direct benefit of the same party. Fool me once sahme on you fool me twice..........Somethiing has changed. The system isn't working as it was a way to gerrymander has been worked into the system.

 

In 2012 Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

So since 2000 Republicans have managed to win the white house twice and pick up seats on congress without the popular vote (majority support of the people) and there is nothing suspicious about that? A trend isnt forming?

The House is gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans. You cannot, however, gerrymander the Electoral College. The way it is set up does slightly favor Republicans from a vote per Electoral College vote perspective because the Electoral College gives a small edge to less populous states and Republicans tend to get votes from more rural areas than the more urban Democratic base.

 

But that's a feature that has been baked into the EC since the beginning, long before the Reoublican Party was even a thing. It's more pronounced at the moment because the difference in population density between urbanized and rural states has gotten more extreme which exacerbates the effect, and because the increasing polarization has run roughly along urban and rural lines. So one party happens to draw from the more electorally advantaged regions and the other from the less electoral advantaged regions.

 

And in very close races, that gives one party a consistent leg up in terms of getting the necessary electoral votes.

 

But that's not the same thing as gerrymandering because nobody is intentionally rigging the system that way in order to advance one party's agenda. It's just that an in-built bias towards rural concerns has been advantage for one party of late, which is potentially an issue but is its own issue and shouldn't be lumped into the same category as gerrymandering.

 

It's important to remember that "This isn't a coincidence" is not synonymous with "This is a conspiracy."

[MigL]

So again I have to ask...

What should a good man do, other than protest and riot ?

 

Do you think the election should be annulled and done over ?

I would predict an even bigger win for D Trump in that case ( then again my predictions have sucked so far ).

 

Do you think the 'progressive' areas should go their separate ways ?

I don't think the break-up of the country is a viable solution.

 

Do you think the Electoral College should be scrapped ( I do, by the way )?

That would seem a lot less self-serving had you ( or any Democrat, including the President ) mentioned it during the last 8 yrs.

 

Do you think the evil D trump should be shot ?

OK, that's a little extreme, maybe just wounded ( i'm joking, and in very bad taste )

 

Heck, even Robert DeNiro has stated that he would not punch D Trump in the face anymore, as he is now his President, and the Office deserves a certain amount of respect. Even though the election results made him feel like he did after 9/11 ( now THAT is extreme and in bad taste; he equates it with 3000 people dying ? )

[geordief]

Is this all about Globalization and is Trump and even American democracy a sideshow?

 

Is he just one of millions of citizen Canutes who don't like where they are,willy nilly going ?

 

Did anyone really think the American electorate was more enlightened than any other? Their beliefs and attitudes reflect their up till now privileged position in the world order and the real and mythological steps along the path of their recent history.

 

This is not to say they do not have an outsized portion of responsibility to themselves and others ,but at this point of time they seem to have decided "fuck it".

 

As someone said once "The Times they are a Changing" .

[Delta1212]

So again I have to ask...

What should a good man do, other than protest and riot ?

 

Do you think the election should be annulled and done over ?

I would predict an even bigger win for D Trump in that case ( then again my predictions have sucked so far ).

 

Do you think the 'progressive' areas should go their separate ways ?

I don't think the break-up of the country is a viable solution.

 

Do you think the Electoral College should be scrapped ( I do, by the way )?

That would seem a lot less self-serving had you ( or any Democrat, including the President ) mentioned it during the last 8 yrs.

 

Do you think the evil D trump should be shot ?

OK, that's a little extreme, maybe just wounded ( i'm joking, and in very bad taste )

 

Heck, even Robert DeNiro has stated that he would not punch D Trump in the face anymore, as he is now his President, and the Office deserves a certain amount of respect. Even though the election results made him feel like he did after 9/11 ( now THAT is extreme and in bad taste; he equates it with 3000 people dying ? )

I know lots of people, Democrats and Republicans who have complained about the Electoral College over the last eight years. I'm not sure why you think that no one cared until just now. I'm also not sure why you think it is only less self-serving had the President talked about it during the last eight years, since I haven't heard him say anything about it even now.

[Ten oz]

The House is gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans. You cannot, however, gerrymander the Electoral College. The way it is set up does slightly favor Republicans from a vote per Electoral College vote perspective because the Electoral College gives a small edge to less populous states and Republicans tend to get votes from more rural areas than the more urban Democratic base.

 

But that's a feature that has been baked into the EC since the beginning, long before the Reoublican Party was even a thing. It's more pronounced at the moment because the difference in population density between urbanized and rural states has gotten more extreme which exacerbates the effect, and because the increasing polarization has run roughly along urban and rural lines. So one party happens to draw from the more electorally advantaged regions and the other from the less electoral advantaged regions.

 

And in very close races, that gives one party a consistent leg up in terms of getting the necessary electoral votes.

 

But that's not the same thing as gerrymandering because nobody is intentionally rigging the system that way in order to advance one party's agenda. It's just that an in-built bias towards rural concerns has been advantage for one party of late, which is potentially an issue but is its own issue and shouldn't be lumped into the same category as gerrymandering.

 

It's important to remember that "This isn't a coincidence" is not synonymous with "This is a conspiracy."

You are right in terms of the design. However the Republican party has an established history of doing all they can (and they are the party in legislative power) to limit voter turnout. Add that to the advantage the EC provides rural communities and it can become a rigged playing field. The Republican party ddn't strip the voting rights act in 2013 and change voting laws in several states ahead on 2016 to ensure voting would be equal for all.

 

"Since the beginning of 2013*, restrictive voting bills have been introduced in more than half the country. At least 82 restrictive bills were introduced in 31 states"

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Voting_Laws_Roundup_2013.pdf

So again I have to ask...

1 - What should a good man do, other than protest and riot ?

 

2 - Do you think the election should be annulled and done over ?

I would predict an even bigger win for D Trump in that case ( then again my predictions have sucked so far ).

 

3 - Do you think the 'progressive' areas should go their separate ways ?

I don't think the break-up of the country is a viable solution.

 

4 - Do you think the Electoral College should be scrapped ( I do, by the way )?

That would seem a lot less self-serving had you ( or any Democrat, including the President ) mentioned it during the last 8 yrs.

 

Do you think the evil D trump should be shot ?

OK, that's a little extreme, maybe just wounded ( i'm joking, and in very bad taste )

 

Heck, even Robert DeNiro has stated that he would not punch D Trump in the face anymore, as he is now his President, and the Office deserves a certain amount of respect. Even though the election results made him feel like he did after 9/11 ( now THAT is extreme and in bad taste; he equates it with 3000 people dying ? )

No one has advocate any of the positions you have posed as questions which makes your post a bit exaggerated as a means of being dismissive but I will answer where I can (for myself) all the same.

 

1 - Collect the facts. Don't just ignore outliers by saying c'est la vie. There are still some unknowns in my opinion worth getting some clear answers for:

*Russian entities did cyber attack Hillary Clinton specifically to aid Donald Trump. That doesn't mean Trump was in on it but it did happen all the same. No one has a clear working theory for why they did that. No one can say for sure if they suceeded in swining the election (I am sure they feel as though they suceeded). And they is the ethical question about they way Trump himself welcomed the attacks and exploited the information received from them.

*Was the vote supressed? About to 8 million less people voted this year despite early projections of a record turnout. We know voting laws were changed after parts of the voting rights act was stripped in 2013. Did these changes limit voters from having the ability to vote or were people simply interested and all the projections and early tracking numbers wrong?

 

2 - Depends on the answers to number one. If anything illegal happened than Trump should be removed just as Nixon was for illegal campaign tactics. It is not unprecendented. Lets not forget that the worst part of Watergate was that members of Nixon's staff wire tapped the opposing candidates campaign staff. Nixon himself wasn't even in on it and won the election easy anyway. Nixon went down because once he found out he covered it. Stealing emails (cyber attacks) is todays equivalent. If Trump new something or was involved it is no small matter to just shrug off. This (cyber attacking of candidates during campaigns) should not be allowed to become the new status qou and it could if accepted or not paid attention to by us (the people).

 

3 - No

 

4 - I am not sure. It is worth a national debate.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Yes I said those things about Trump. I viewed him as a con-artist, a negotiator, and a salesman. He said or did a disqualifying thing every day for a year and a half. Except people don't listen to me, and I am not in any kind of position of power. I was equally suspicious of Hilary and hold her responsible for backing the Arab spring and seeking regime change in Syria, without committing our blood, just our treasure, and helping to maintain the civil war in Syria that has taken a quarter million lives and spread refugees and unrest throughout Europe. I liked neither candidate and neither would be my choice as leader of the free world. However, my country decided who they wanted, and it was a shock and surprise to every pollster and pundit out there.

 

But I have a theory as to why so many backed Trump. It has to do with one of my 90 10 theories. This one, that 10 percent of the population are the leaders and these are the people with the power and charisma and wealth and ability and intelligence and trustworthiness, that are the coaches and teachers and preachers and project managers, and counselers and bosses and owners and leaders in science and art and politics, business and entertainment, that lead our society and make it work...Trump went after the other 90 percent, and struck a chord.

 

Regards, TAR

Thing is, the 90 percent that are not the leaders, are the majority, and are equal Americans whose will needs to be respected.

and Ten Oz, folding this back in with my other 90 10 theory, that 90 percent of us are good, and 10 percent questionable, and less than 1 percent downright evil, it means that most republicans AND most democrats are good, but not in the top 10 percent of the population in terms of ability and trustworthiness and "mob rule" is not the best way to go

Edited November 12, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

Yes I said those things about Trump. I viewed him as a con-artist, a negotiator, and a salesman. He said or did a disqualifying thing every day for a year and a half. Except people don't listen to me, and I am not in any kind of position of power. I was equally suspicious of Hilary and hold her responsible for backing the Arab spring and seeking regime change in Syria, without committing our blood, just our treasure, and helping to maintain the civil war in Syria that has taken a quarter million lives and spread refugees and unrest throughout Europe. I liked neither candidate and neither would be my choice as leader of the free world. However, my country decided who they wanted, and it was a shock and surprise to every pollster and pundit out there.

 

But I have a theory as to why so many backed Trump. It has to do with one of my 90 10 theories. This one, that 10 percent of the population are the leaders and these are the people with the power and charisma and wealth and ability and intelligence and trustworthiness, that are the coaches and teachers and preachers and project managers, and counselers and bosses and owners and leaders in science and art and politics, business and entertainment, that lead our society and make it work...Trump went after the other 90 percent, and struck a chord.

 

Regards, TAR

I disagree. Mitt Romney got 2 million more votes than Trump did but no claims Romney "struck a cord". Is it that Trump did so well with his half of our divided nation or did Clinton just do so bad? Overall about 8 million less people than 2012 and 12 million less than 2008 showed up to vote. Seems to me neither struck a chord and Trump had the more loyal base.

 

You still haven't full addressed the hacking issue. Merely provided dismissive comments. We know Russian entities cyber attacked Clinton specifically to help Trump. Nixon was impeached for Watergate. Nixon did not plan and wasn't aware in realtime of the wire taps and behavior of some in his campaign. Nixon also didn't need the help. He won easily. However, after the fact Nixon swept in under the rug once he found out. He was impeached because it is a dangerous precendence. Democracy is at stake when elections are not fair and honest. I am not advocating Trump's impeachment. I am advocating for an investigation into what happened and why. We cannot alow foriegn entities to cyber attack candidates in an attempt to sway the outcome of our elections. Such poses a clear and present danger to our democracy.

 

And I am not talking about when Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton and later called it a joke. I accept that he was just playing up to his base. His jokes aside Russian entities did engage in cyber attacks against Hillary Clinton's campaignto benefit Trump. It did happen and point out where Trump was joking doesn't change that it happened. We need to understand why the foriegn entities did this, make sure in the future such isn't allowed (perhaps a law that prevents media and campaigns from discussing illegally obtain materiel untill after it has been vetted by law enforcement and intellegnce communities), and arrest/charge any U.S. citizens who were involved.

[EdEarl]

Heck, even Robert DeNiro has stated that he would not punch D Trump in the face anymore, as he is now his President, and the Office deserves a certain amount of respect. Even though the election results made him feel like he did after 9/11 ( now THAT is extreme and in bad taste; he equates it with 3000 people dying ? )

I have a similar feeling, because the Republicans are committed to slow the conversion to renewable energy, which will assure a greater affect from climate change. And climate change has killed and will kill many people. The greater its affect, the more people will die. WHO says,

 

Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.

The 3000 deaths on 9/11 are as a drop in the bucket. Trump being elected seems to me to be a tragedy in the making.

[Delta1212]

I have a similar feeling, because the Republicans are committed to slow the conversion to renewable energy, which will assure a greater affect from climate change. And climate change has killed and will kill many people. The greater its affect, the more people will die. WHO says,

The 3000 deaths on 9/11 are as a drop in the bucket. Trump being elected seems to me to be a tragedy in the making.

But it's an abstract tragedy which makes its consequences much easier to ignore and does not, therefore, count.

[dedo]

How is that bad per se? Am I to take that you think it's flat out morally wrong based just on some personal principle?

 

I believe it is morally wrong because I believe that life begins at conception. That is not a personal belief, but is a religious belief shared by a significant percentage of the planet.

 

If the Democratic Party were to encourage or allow diversity on this subject, Clinton might have won. Personally, I agree with the Democrats on almost every issue except abortion. For example, there are ways to cut abortions in half without outlawing the procedure. If Clinton had been just willing to go that far, she might have gotten the edge she needed.

 

Finally, there is evidence in many areas including disease and violence, that toxic effects on humanity are environmental and self perpetuating. Since the evidence is strong that at least criminal violence works this way, it is likely that other forms of violence including abortion, will result in more violence down the road.

 

I voted a write in, and did not support any of the presidential candidates.

[Phi for All]

I believe it is morally wrong because I believe that life begins at conception. That is not a personal belief, but is a religious belief shared by a significant percentage of the planet.

It would still be almost impossible to enforce if this were to become law. Women would be investigated by the police after miscarriages.

 

Personally, I agree with the Democrats on almost every issue except abortion. For example, there are ways to cut abortions in half without outlawing the procedure.

Citation please?

 

Finally, there is evidence in many areas including disease and violence, that toxic effects on humanity are environmental and self perpetuating. Since the evidence is strong that at least criminal violence works this way, it is likely that other forms of violence including abortion, will result in more violence down the road.

Forgive me, I didn't understand this at all. Which "toxic effects on humanity" are you talking about? Perhaps you could share your evidence?

 

And criminal violence works what way?

[Ten oz]

But it's an abstract tragedy which makes its consequences much easier to ignore and does not, therefore, count.

Trump's secret plan (send forces into Syria to kill lots and lots of people) to defeat ISIS won't be abstract.

[Delta1212]

Trump's secret plan (send forces into Syria to kill lots and lots of people) to defeat ISIS won't be abstract.

It is at the moment, though.

[Phi for All]

Trump's secret plan (send forces into Syria to kill lots and lots of people) to defeat ISIS won't be abstract.

 

How long before the announcement that the US is pro-Assad? Will that mean a crown for the new Czar Putin?

[waitforufo]

Trump's secret plan (send forces into Syria to kill lots and lots of people) to defeat ISIS won't be abstract.

Was Obama's secret plan to wait until around 400,000 people died in the Syrian civil war before doing anything substantial?

[Ten oz]

Was Obama's secret plan to wait until around 400,000 people died in the Syrian civil war before doing anything substantial?

Is it the job of the United States to settle civil wars? If we (USA) had another civil war which foriegn power would we want to come settle it for us?

 

How long before the announcement that the US is pro-Assad? Will that mean a crown for the new Czar Putin?

sooner rather than later to the first question and we just don't know to the second question.

[Phi for All]

Was Obama's secret plan to wait until around 400,000 people died in the Syrian civil war before doing anything substantial?

"We’re leading Ukraine. Where’s Germany? Where are the countries of Euroe leading? I don’t mind helping them. I don’t mind being right behind them. I’ll be right behind them. You know the old expression, “Go on, fellows. I’m right behind you?” ... Why isn’t Germany, Chuck, leading this charge? Why is the United States? I mean, we’re like the policemen of the world." --Donald Trump

“We are going to have to stop being the policemen of the world,” Trump said in September. In a different interview, Trump said, “Let Syria and ISIS fight. Why do we care? Let ISIS and Syria fight. And let Russia, they’re in Syria already, let them fight ISIS.” --Donald Trump

[MigL]

Trump changes his mind ( and denies having made the previous statements ) as often as he changes underwear.

Judging him on things he says he's going to do is a bit premature.

[Delta1212]

Trump changes his mind ( and denies having made the previous statements ) as often as he changes underwear.

Judging him on things he says he's going to do is a bit premature.

 

 

Yeah, I was thinking that, but based on the people that have actually been appointed so far, we're not in for a pleasant ride.

[MigL]

I noticed Ten oz didn't comment on option # 5 in his post # 82...

[Ten oz]

I noticed Ten oz didn't comment on option # 5 in his post # 82...

You conceded it was absurd.

[tar]

I disagree. Mitt Romney got 2 million more votes than Trump did but no claims Romney "struck a cord". Is it that Trump did so well with his half of our divided nation or did Clinton just do so bad? Overall about 8 million less people than 2012 and 12 million less than 2008 showed up to vote. Seems to me neither struck a chord and Trump had the more loyal base.

 

You still haven't full addressed the hacking issue. Merely provided dismissive comments. We know Russian entities cyber attacked Clinton specifically to help Trump. Nixon was impeached for Watergate. Nixon did not plan and wasn't aware in realtime of the wire taps and behavior of some in his campaign. Nixon also didn't need the help. He won easily. However, after the fact Nixon swept in under the rug once he found out. He was impeached because it is a dangerous precendence. Democracy is at stake when elections are not fair and honest. I am not advocating Trump's impeachment. I am advocating for an investigation into what happened and why. We cannot alow foriegn entities to cyber attack candidates in an attempt to sway the outcome of our elections. Such poses a clear and present danger to our democracy.

 

And I am not talking about when Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton and later called it a joke. I accept that he was just playing up to his base. His jokes aside Russian entities did engage in cyber attacks against Hillary Clinton's campaignto benefit Trump. It did happen and point out where Trump was joking doesn't change that it happened. We need to understand why the foriegn entities did this, make sure in the future such isn't allowed (perhaps a law that prevents media and campaigns from discussing illegally obtain materiel untill after it has been vetted by law enforcement and intellegnce communities), and arrest/charge any U.S. citizens who were involved.

 

Ten Oz,

 

Personally I hated the Snowden deal, and the WikiLeaks and don't like enemies in our computer systems at all. But in terms of Hilary and the private server, the ability for her communications to have been hacked, is doubly possible given the hacking that happened during the election. Trump and the republicans have been on your and my side on this, from the first we knew that Hilary did not maintain proper care of government communications. You don't give your private stuff away, it is very dangerous to our national security. Snowden had a clip drive full of stuff that compromised us in a thousand ways. Our data and how we protected it, has been in the Russian hands since Snowden fled from china to there. We are still paying a security price, I am sure, and Russia's boldness in Crimea may or may not be related to knowing some things they found out through Snowden that weaken us. Dangerous and deadly, for sure. But this is why Hilary's carelessness was such a big deal to everybody, and her deleting what was government records, as they were to and from the secretary of state, was a possibly criminal act. Trump did not want Russia to hack us, he exactly did not want Hilary's communications as Secretary 'of State compromising our security. I saw live his comment about maybe the Russians have the deleted e-mail and it was sarcastic at the get-go, it was not something that he said as a Russian spy and said was a joke later. It was to point out that Hilary's server was possibly comprimised and wouldn't that be especially damning to her, if the Russians had the deleted emails. We could find out what she deleted and know she was compromised, at the same time.

 

I am though concerned that Russia has so much of our communications. Makes us vulnerable.'s

 

But it is really scary to me how negative Trump was toward Obama's policies, and how negative Obama was toward Trump's qualifications. It is not helpful to undermine your president, or your future president. I did it to Hilary, expressing my concerns, so I guess it is normal for people to be fearful as to what dangerous mistakes the third person will make.

 

As is the thrust of the protestors, afraid of Trump putting everyone in jail and deporting everyone. Fear of the other going down some slippery slope toward destruction.

 

But, given that Russia could kill us, and we could kill Russia, and they know as many of our secrets, as they do...what would be the harm, as Trump puts it, for us to have better relations with Russia?

 

Phi is concerned that Trump will be OK with Assad...like that is an evil thing. What if during the Arab spring, we had NOT backed the rebels. We would have Assad in charge of Syria, which we have anyway, and we might not have a quarter million dead Syrians. I am willing, given the dangerous situation of a possible air war with Russia over Syria, to maybe take a different tact in Syria, than the apparent unsuccessful one, we have been on. Helping Assad regain control and kick out ISIS, with Russia, might not be the worst choice.

 

So these protests are understandable. Dreams dashed of our first female president, and social justice, and gay rights and other liberal goals of single payer health care and free college and the like...so a period of mourning is understandable. But there are 320 million wills in the U.S. and not everybody is comfortable doing it the way it was going. The pendulum has swung somewhat right, but that does not mean we won't still find a way to do it right.

 

Regards, TAR

1. Besides, it might not be so bad to have Trump as our president. He is, after all capable. He destroyed a capable field of Republican candidates in the primary, and beat a sure thing first female in the election. The most qualified candidate in history, defeated by the most unqualified in history. And he did it by himself. He, and his family and several loyal supporters, without the support of donors and the media or Washington insiders. Well he did have the RNC and their ground game, but basically he went to rallies with just him and Pence with a few stars here and there. He did not have two presidents and a vice president helping him on the trail, yet he won, which says something about his capability. If you can win the presidency you must have some skills. And he is financially successful and really can do it on his own, and does not need to follow any body else's interests. He can do what is best for America and her people, without fear of losing financial support. And he is a deal maker, and knows how to negotiate, and knows how to walk. And he is not as conservative as Cruz, having once been a democrat and having once supported Hilary, so we may be pleasantly surprised by his ability to reach across the aisle. And he, even as just a candidate, has affected world actors, as Germany I hear upped their contributions to NATO since he said what he said, showing me, all in all, that people are affected by his words, and know he is capable of getting things to work. So protestors who say he is not their president, should give him a chance. One, because he actually is going to be our president. And two because as Americans, we need him to be successful.

Edited November 13, 2016 by tar

[dedo]

It would still be almost impossible to enforce if this were to become law. Women would be investigated by the police after miscarriages.

 

Citation please?

 

Forgive me, I didn't understand this at all. Which "toxic effects on humanity" are you talking about? Perhaps you could share your evidence?

 

And criminal violence works what way?

 

 

In our area, after Crisis Pregnancy Centers opened in the region, abortions fell by 50%. I have not looked at other areas.

 

You do not need to prosecute women to reduce the numbers of abortions.

 

In terms of environmental causes of disease and violence I suggest:

 

1. Disease: "The Brain Maker Diet" by Perlmutter, discusses the effect of diet on gut health and how the gut microbiome may the the common denominator in scores of diseases.

 

2. Violence: "Why They Kill" by Rhodes, discusses how violence perpetuates violence in the criminal world.