J.C.MacSwell

Stuff like this Zap? Is this the type of statement you are against?

This is essentially what Pelosi is saying. In fact she is even claiming that the impeachment is not politically driven at all. It is only going ahead due to the Democrats sense of duty and higher purpose. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/12/05/cnn-townhall-with-nancy-pelosi-n2557584 Host Jake Tapper asked the speaker of the House if she would have any regrets, come 2020, if exit polls revealed that pursuing impeachment had helped President Trump win reelection. “No,” Pelosi answered unequivocally. “This isn’t about politics at all. This is about patriotism. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about honoring our oath of office.” Congratulations if you believe it. (not saying you do, or do not) It isn't unreasonable to note that an awful lot of effort and attention is being put toward impeachment that could otherwise be put toward these bills...and not having them officially on hold or shelved does not make the tie unreasonable. To you it might. Others might actually believe that it is in fact distracting from other important law making. It's hardly a stretch. The sentiment expressed by YJO2 might be more common than you might like to think. Don't shoot the messenger. This is a fair point. It certainly suggests the dilemma now facing the Democrats...one they could have avoided.

Maybe you don't agree with it, but many believe that the current impeachment proceedings are intended to affect Trump's approval ratings and thus make him less likely to be elected. Let me know if you need any evidence that that is the case.

Are they not inexorably linked?

No Zap. I am not. "In this manner" is referring to constantly overstating the Democrat case, not Pamela Karlan spouting BS on this one unisolated example. Do you want another example? For the bold: I never made that claim, though I would argue that Democrats make it far to easy for Republicans. They're overstatements are far easier to defend against than the truth. Why is it that Trump's approval rating tends to drop when he does something stupid, but goes back up when the Democrats overextend when they attack him? "Hold my beer!" "No, you hold my beer!"

Again. It isn't a very bold assertion to claim people don't tend to vote for those they don't trust. If you make a reasonable argument that they do (you haven't)...then I might feel obligated to back up my claim that they don't. Un-extraordinary claims, which every thread in Science Forums is full of, require little extra supporting evidence. I'm not the one claiming something counter intuitive. If you want proof...best of luck...you won't find any either way, in cases such as this where secret ballots are used.

It's not a very bold assertion. Got any numbers saying those losing trust will still vote Democrat? Can you truly back this up? The fact that the presidential elections are always close does not prove this. With both parties attempting to "turn out the base" at the expense of appealing to the middle, what proof do you have that it won't work? How many voters have been turned off by both sides?

People who lose trust in the alternative. We need less Schiff and more Yang.

This is from someone called, by the Democrats, as an expert witness on impeachment. An Elementary school child can tell where it is "functionally different", and why, and also why it wasn't a "perfect call". This is a fail. She was there for one purpose: To convince the American Public that what Trump did rises to that of an unequivocally impeachable offence. She would convince no one with that argument. Those that think it's convincing are so far down the rabbit hole of wishful thinking there is no hope for them. There is a difference between questioning Trump's motives and having an "expert" answer in such an obviously biased manner. Purpose and fail. They're handing the 2020 election to Trump in this manner. Trump constantly reminds us all why he shouldn't have been elected, and shouldn't get reelected. Democrats should just watch and point...not say "hold my beer!".

“I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal.” Yes. That would of course be pretty convincing. I bet she wishes Trump had said that.

I heard the Devil was organizing a hockey game. I thought it was a home game on natural ice. One bad assumption leads to another...my bad.

Ding Dong... Has she thrown her support behind Tulsi yet?

Using the inertial frame of the system: Kinetic energy (of a system's components) with respect to the centre of mass of a system contributes to the rest mass of the system.

...and why do they like his act? Do you think calling this third of Americans racist and deplorable might weigh in on it...for them and other Americans that see it, at least in part, as self righteous and self serving? Right. Should be easy to make America a better offer. Like...really easy.

Thanks

That was my assumption. Something had to take part, and the photon had to have the sufficient energy you mentioned with respect to the frame of that "something". I expect you might find that obvious or trivial, but not everyone would. That is why I questioned it.

I don't think it was very well worded. Does it make sense now?

If nothing takes part in the interaction from a frame in which the photon's energy is sufficient, how is it that any photon would not have sufficient energy? The argument being that as there can be no preferred frame of reference, how can any photon have insufficient energy? I think there needs to be something participating that has a frame from which the photon measures as having sufficient energy. How can that be incorrect?

I was also thinking something (same something) wrt which it would have sufficient energy, needing to take part.

Not on it's own though?

We can all use a little extra fibre right now...

You seem to struggle with my intended context. Consistently. I can't believe it is entirely my fault. Trump was Trump long before he became a democrat target. Try reading that as "the election of Trump" was as much, or more, a symptom...

I think the Democrats could make a better case for this if they were any better. Trump is as much, or more, a symptom of the Democrat's apparent loathing of half their citizens than he is a symptom of the values of that other half.

You feel I should be personally responsible for the Republicans?

Sorry to disappoint.