J.C.MacSwell

I wouldn't know. Other than I know there are some accusations. How would I know?

Defending Trump...with Schiff assisting in making it sound reasonable in comparison.

My suggestions are aimed at what might be plausible. Don't forget "the bum" has been no worse than expected...he's no more despicable today than he was in 2015...no less fit for the office. ...and the Democrats may or may not be better...(insert Yang promotion here)

Then they should go for censure. Even if it is to some degree admitting a weaker hand than they've so fervently claimed. I bet they get some level of bipartisan support, including all Dems. ...and it avoids the GOP controlled Senate taking over. The question is "are all factions of the Democrats smart enough to accept that?" (just my opinion)

I think they could. But the question is will it be significant enough? (think in terms of amount of damning evidence per witness rather than further accumulation of damning evidence...because that is likely closer to how it will be weighed) By and for Senators...and then voters. If they aren't sure they have sufficient evidence...they aren't playing their hand very well. ...and they certainly haven't played it well up until now, IMO. Note: read sufficient as sufficient to accomplish the goal of Trump removal by January 2021, not whether you think it should be.

Unless they get new evidence from sources such as you suggest, I think they are more likely to censure Trump instead of go for impeachment. A somewhat hollow victory (or loss, whatever), but this would avoid putting it in the hands of the Senate, where the Democrats would not just likely lose the trial, but very likely the political game, especially if Biden gets the Democrat nomination. Going for censure would be somewhat cutting their losses at this point (assuming they can't get further testimony significantly detrimental to Trump) but has a couple of redeeming side effects: It takes pressure off many Democrats in swing states that regret the position impeachment puts on them... ...and puts pressure instead on Republicans that disagree with Trump's "antics", but find them to be less than impeachable.

How so?

It was. I don't think there is any value to this thread in rehashing it further. You can read back (all on previous page) I'm often wrong but maybe less than you might think if you don't read carefully. I usually pose questions when uncertain of my opinions.

Great answer. Thank you for your admittedly uninformed opinion. At least you are honest about it.

This subject: I asked you directly if you were aware of how often MSNBC had been a bad tool (context being with regard to Yang) You replied "not really, no". Where's the conflation?

I thought you already admitted you didn't really know much on this subject? For anyone interested here is what is going on. Some of it is surely coincidence. But too much of it surely is not. https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout

If they were 10 X further away and went through the same acceleration they would read the others clocks adjustment as 10 X as much, so when they came together they would still synch up. I see Janus has covered this.

Edited: back in time should read forward in time Accelerating in the opposite direction, when far enough away, could move the others clock back in time

They would have disagreed during the accelerations, and at all points up until they came together. If they had been farther apart at the start, on accelerating they would have disagreed moreso. So much so that if they were far enough apart, due to their own accelerations they would calculate the others clock to have gone forward in time.

I knew it! All those things my wife accused me of were not due to me... ...from now on I can plead the fifth!

I hadn't seen the first 5 minutes where they were stationary when synced up then accelerated. While they would both calculate the other's clock was delayed relative to when I started watching (after the accelerations of each were complete), Janus's explanation is therefore more complete and correct.

But more than willing to throw out a cliche on the matter to dismiss Yang's complaint out of hand? Don't forget to add bad tactics... Hopefully much of the above doesn't get repeated in 2020...(electoral college, and unfortunately much of the disenfranchisement, are already set in place)

+1. Generally these pseudo paradoxes stem from mixing special relativity with some good ol' Newtonian "common sense". They aren't compatible except for non relativistic speed approximations.

Both clocks would in fact show the other as delayed when they are brought together in this symmetric manner. This is because they would have disagreed on simultaneity earlier. Not much of a paradox...

Are you aware how often MSNBC has been a bad tool? It's been more than limiting time in the debates, where you could argue Yang has been too polite. I guess this can be directed at the Democrats for the results in 2016?

Damn mosquito herders...

That's a fairly significant departure from Yang's style to date. It will be interesting to see how MSNBC responds. For anyone paying attention to their coverage of Yang, it's a very bad look for them.

I certainly agree with his concerns. I can't say I agree with how he feels things should be controlled. He mentions "what if Goebbels" had these platforms back in the thirties a few times. Well, what if Goebbels controlled these platforms using the algorithms or methods he suggests?

Nice video Mistermack.

I think we should tax carbon. If this falls unduly on the poor or middle class there are other ways to compensate. A carbon tax will have a reducing effect on carbon emissions. It would also provide revenue that can help pay for pollution reduction, studies etc and can be used for the above mentioned compensation.