monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Such as?

Why is there no "popcorn" emoji?

You were all for him when he was squeezing Trump's hand.

Another sign of your nuanced political views.

I don't believe that I've made the claim that we should. Indeed the phrase 'social hierarchies' is vast and at the least I'd ask you get more specific.

Well, Macron used his trip, particularly his Congressional speech, to outline and defend Western values and the EU unity. And he delivered an impassioned plea for democracy, freedom, tolerance, human rights and international cooperation. But what I liked most was that he spoke about "fake news" (intentionally false information from unverified sources that undermines democracy by misleading citizens), the continuation of the Iran nuclear deal, a continued US role in Syria beyond the defeat of the Islamic State, the need to address climate change, and a complete end to the threats of US tariffs against European Union countries.

Oh, I don't know, take your pick from just about any of the sometimes archaic things that western society has mostly evolved beyond being acceptable (duels in the street, beating "our" women", violence being an answer to just about any problem, slavery, theft, rape, pillaging, conquering indigenous civilizations).

I think Macron is taking advantage of Trump’s sort of slobbery need to be propped up with ‘friendship’ and compliments couched in criticism.

I think he’s using his social/psychology skills to bend trump. He did act all bro, but he was critical and held to standards as much as one can in this crazy situation.

We’ll see how successful he is.

I said "minority viewpoints" and it was just an example of how the American system is set up to do that; there are others.

In some cases, yes, it means giving those with minority viewpoints the right to block what many (but obviously not many-enough) view as progress.

What else would protecting minority viewpoints mean?

Curious though if you would answer my question on countries whose government systems you feel are the best in the world?

Archaic? With the possible exception of the last thing, all the others continue today.

As far as them being animalistic:

Duels in the Street = Duels in the Fields, Plains, Mountains, & Seas- With the major difference being that animals rarely end their duels with one or the other combatant dead or even severely injured. It does, of course, happen when two Super-Alphas face off, but just about every species has evolved surrender behaviors so that dominance displays don't end in death or injury. Apparently we didn't (Or our big brain overrode them!)

Beating "Our Women" (don't really understand your use of the " ") = ?? - There may be a species out there that engages in this specific behavior, but I don't know of any.

Violence Being an Answer to Everything - See Duels in the Street. Uncontrolled violence is rarely seen in the animal world, because it's too counter-productive. (BTW - It's also rarely seen in the entirety of the human world)

Slavery - Yes, but I believe only a few species of ants engage in this behavior

Theft - OK, a great many species will steal meals from their fellows and other species, and maybe some birds will steal bright shiny objects from one another, but as they have very few possessions, this doesn't really seem like an animalistic trait.

Rape - Yes indeed. Dolphins, in particular, are guilty of this and so are many other species. One theory for the very unique (and by human standards), disgusting sexual organs of the female hyena is that it a rape prevention mechanism. It take great skill and time for a male to insert his penis in the female's vagina, and if she wants no part of it, it ain't happening. Reproduction is a harsh mistress.

Pillaging - Does this happen without war? Ants go to war and chimps stage raids, but it's not a common behavior in the animal world

Conquering Indigenous Civilizations - This, in the animal world, is for the most part a surrvival mechanism. A mob of meerkats will not invade the territory of another mob's lusting for shiny beetle shells. They want the sustenance and protection available. It was for most of human history the same for humans. At some point, humans diverged from their fellow animals.

My primary point here is that if humans need to socially or culturally evolve, it is because as a species they have departed from the behaviors of just about all of their fellow animals.

I don't say this as a defender of animals per se but as a defender of the notion that evolution has led us to a great many behaviors that are perfectly fine, despite the sensitivities of liberals. (ie Social Hierarchies)

The behaviors you wish humans to evolve beyond are by and large of their own making rather than evolution's evil residue.

given the composition of the population of Wyoming vs the composition of the population of California I'd say that Wyoming's over-representation in Washington is hardly an indication of minority viewpoints being supported - in fact I'd say it's the opposite. 2 old white male senators. Just what the US needs more of. For leavening, Wyoming offers Liz Cheney in Congress.

I wasn't speaking of minority viewpoints in reference to a person's race.

I mean a minority view point in the sense of majority vs minority opinions/beliefs/needs.

I know you're not trying to convince me - and you're not. Your opinion is yours, mine remains mine.

Ok. But if you’re responding to my point/question about the USA having greater protections for minority viewpoints and that response has anything to do with a senators racial makeup, then you’re not answering my question or responding to my point. You’re making a new one.

I am really curious what people’s opinions are on what other countries govern better.

I’m pretty much ignorant to details of other systems. Hell, I’m largely ignorant of the USA.

That is what we are importing. We are the indigenous civilization.

He'd have put Dr. Leaky on ignore because he would not have been capable of bluffing his way through a conversation with him.

Freedom and civil rights are not something that needs to be "solved".



There is no reason to think that either of those would save anyone any money.

The lobbies are an expression of the sovereign will of the people.

Is anyone here familiar with John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance? I wouldn't mind talking about that but I'm not sure whether the conversation would fill a stadium.