That was my thought too.

I've never heard that, but it sure makes sense. Is it true?

In fact it seems plausible that a religion might even materialize as a way to help massive groups of people do, and not do, the things that help us advance as a species.
.
We can't all spend our lives studying existentialism. We need farmers and builders etc. So lets just set a bunch of rules that shape people to a moral standard that will help us advance as a society. Then we can set some consequences for not adhering to the rules. Make the ruling character all knowing, all powerful and unquantifiable. Then just write all the teachings in story form so that it's interesting and more likely to spread?

But why does your freedom to stay alive trump someone else's freedom of choice to end your life? Who decides that compassion is the value that a society should use to judge people? Who ever made the rule that a healthy society is one that rejects murder?
.
For the record, I believe murder is very wrong. But without a basis to compare against (for example religion), I'm afraid I also believe that right and wrong are largely arbitrary.
.
That being said I think people are much more capable of continuing humanity if they build trust and work together. A natural deterrent of trust would be certainly be murdering someone for minimal reasons. It seems to me that a natural societal evolution of humanity would likely have fewer murders (as a %) as we evolved (either with or without religion).

I absolutely agree the there are reasons to leave instantly. I imagine those are more of the exception than the rule.

No offence taken. I think it would be very unreasonable of anyone to think that something like an increase in quality of life could be universally achieved across 330 million people.

I guess i view it like this: The uniqueness of the United States is in the nickname "the land of opportunity". Its opposition would be "the land of equal outcome". There has been unprecedented job growth and unemployment decline. 5 years ago we had loads of people, including this site, complain about not finding a job. That's all but gone away. Opportunities are everywhere if people are willing to take some risk.
.
I understand what you're saying so maybe a better way for me to say it is that the increased quality of life is there for people who want to take a risk and go achieve it.
.
A universal lift in everyone's wages is simply impossible. Opportunity creation, on the other hand, is happening all around us.

What is your evidence that things are bad in the country right now or that he's doing a bad job?
.
I would say there is a clear and stark divide between D vs R in this country which was brought on by Trump.
.
He's ego driven and a bully. He's absolutely not someone i want my kids to look up to as a role model
.
But the general quality of life increase for americans is awfully hard to deny.

Google and read the wikileaks email from the president of Goldman Sachs to DNC director John Podesta. The Bank president gave the director of the DNC a list of people the incoming president elect Barack Obama could choose from as appointees for his cabinet positions.
.
Think that through for a while and consider the realities that would need to be in place for that kind of a transaction to happen.

@sassyllamaeswuire, Trump is an outsider to Washington. Think about this; are two Clintons' and 3 Bushs' really the best and brightest our country has to offer? Are we really electing a president of our choosing if the only two candidates are chosen for us every cycle? That would mean there would have to be an unelected "ruling class" behind the curtains.
.
Every primary presidential candidate in the last 30 years has been chosen for us.....until Trump. That is the only reason he's getting so much opposition. It's because he found a way into the good ol boy's club. Think about how threatening it would be for that group of people who choose the two candidates every 4 years to have an outsider come into the most powerful position in the world.

@sassyllamaeswuire, i'm afraid an impeachment is absolutely possible based off a witch hunt. An impeachment, like what happened last night, only needs support of 51% of the House. No judge, no voter support, no proof, no evidence, no Senate approval, no journey, not even a trial. It only requires a simple vote of a Democratic majority House of Representatives.
.
In fact your line of thinking that the accusations are so serious that he must be guilty is the foundational reason that the the House Majority Leader chose to go ahead with impeachment knowing full well it'll die in the Senate.
.
Their only goal in this is to make Trump look bad in hopes that fewer people vote for him in November.
.
If that's the case, now who's using their elected power to influence elections.....

@scatmandingo, the problem with Trump people testifying in a hostile congress under oath is in line with the saying "show me the man and I'll show you the crime"
.
Every criminal charge that came out of the Muller probe was a process crime (basically being caught lying or misspeaking under oath).
.
If Trump or his people were to agree to let well trained lawyers tear into them under oath, there would certainly be a handful of process crime charges there as well. Trump knows this and they chose to simply stay away. I don't blame him one bit for recommending that his people stay away.

Oops, my bad Guest.

The senate can actually vote to dismiss the impeachment before it ever goes to trial. That's actually the likely scenario in this case.

I disagree. It's all about the details. Propaganda is garbage. This thing has everything to do with power, Trump has it, and they want it back. Taking away an elected official because the DNC thinks they should have won undermines the entire system. It has to come down to details. Innocent until proven guilty. Guilty has to be proven by facts (details), not determined according to who can whip up public opinion the best (thats what elections are for, not impeachments).

Congressmen, speakers, media people and, by default, normal people keep throwing around the idea that there are the indisputable condemning facts regarding abuse of power and obstructing congress.
.
Although there is a media frenzy, passion, and hatred everywhere, there is no hard evidence (facts) that Trump has done those things. People hate him so much, and the accusations are so great that people are simply assuming he's guilty.
.
To famousone's point, impeachment because of anger and hatred is horrifically wrong.
.
The entirety of the FBI and the US congress cannot bring one oz of proof of guilt. Can anyone on this website offer anything?

@sassyllamaeswuire, i hadn't seen the Trump Foundation story, but I did just read up on it. I'm in 100% agreement that charitable organizations should never be crossed with politics and business. The Trump foundation was very wrong in doing what it did.
.
I did find a couple important details:
1) There was no guilty verdict, the case was settled (thats a significant difference).
2) the Trump Foundation officers (Donald's kids) were ordered to take classes on charitable organizations money management, they are certainly not banned from running charities.
3) although i wish it were not the case, charitable organizations are the both the norm and the primary vehicle used by politicians to increase their lifestyles via their political influence. If you want to know what I mean, research the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Initiative charities drop in "donation" level after she lost the 2016 election.

I'm unaware of that. Do you happen to have a link handy?

I assume he means the Democratic Part authority.
.
I would call President Trump bombastic, egotistical, a bully, thick headed, and narrow minded, amongst others. But is there any real evidence that he's corrupt? I've heard opinions and hearsay almost constantly for 3 years but not one single factual piece of evidence.
.
If you assume he must have done something wrong in order to be impeached you have drastically underestimated the amount of power and money in play.