J.C.MacSwell

I was obviously using a more restrictive definition...the most common for business. Your definition is closer to the "better outcomes" I referred to.

Business just follows the path toward profit, or at least attempts to, in the most efficient manner. Change the rules and you change that path...for better or worse outcomes, depending on how well you do it, and what your goals are.

The US has the highest health care expenditures per capita of any country in the World. (twice that of Canada) The neglect is in the distribution of it.

I don't think it's the logical result of Newton's 3rd Law alone, but certainly in part. It's consistent with it, and not just as an approximation, so I would agree it's not superseded.

One can certainly see that the median point in those graphs doesn't coincide with the peaks...but in each case it is far from "lonely" positions, which are clearly on the right and left extremes. It is easy to see that one should not venture to far left to get a majority, if the voting was based on those graphs. (not to mention the obvious...that the scale of graphs along the x axis are pretty arbitrary, the choice of which defines the position of the peak.) But assuming it is correct, the left has more room to maneuver...they just better not go too far.

Newton's Laws of motion are generally considered low speed approximations of SR, and if you include Newton's Law of gravity that of GR. As a more accurate version of reality SR/GR are well represented by Newton's Laws and much simpler for most applications. However, though approximately consistent with it for most applications, I don't see how SR/GR would follow from Newton's Laws. More accurate measurements where Newton's Laws were insufficient made SR/GR necessary to explain the discrepancies.

I think the former is the logical result of the latter.

I can't say I disagree with any of this. I like him, and his core proposals. I hope he hangs around enough to have them gain traction, and I think he would make a good POTUS despite his inexperience, and his rhetoric is much more positive than most of the other candidates. Warren has the best chance to win the Primary, but what she is selling is giving the centre to Trump. If Trump was not so obnoxious he could beat her readily IMO, and she could beat him easily from a more central position.

I think he did well. Mission accomplished for tonight. We'll see how it gets received... In the main event, Biden I think did much better than he did in round 1. Harris got exposed a bit (more by Gabbard I think), but again I think spoke well. All around it was pretty good debate.

Nope...just a Canadian colluder...trying to influence your election with some non-tribal humanity. Yang has more out there on policy than any other candidate. Can't say I agree with him on everything but he has certainly put himself out there. Who are you rooting for at this point?

He's a team player...his problem is that he sees his team as including everyone

He might try a bunt...

Thanks for the Yang "plug"...https://www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/ Looking forward to the debates. Warren again in the easier debate, so as the candidate with seemingly one of the better chances of winning (if not best chance) she will be likely walked again to first base. (she still might swing for the fence on a couple intentional walk pitches, just to not be outdone by Bernie, who will be swinging wildly on every pitch) Again debate night#2 looks like it has more potential. I don't expect Yang to hit any home runs...but time for him to get on base. If not...he has already (just today) qualified for the next two rounds... https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455207-yang-qualifies-for-third-and-fourth-democratic-debates

Then I guess the answer would be that neither the centre of the Earth or the Earth's surface are simultaneously accelerating wrt the BB, as they are not accelerating wrt it at all. The BB took place as much here as anywhere else. Apologies for the delay in reply.

You think 50 Billion (in addition to current public expenses) will cover that? Do you not think more people might choose to go if it's free? How do you ensure equal access to this "free education", which I would assume by your number would not include living expenses? Would your answer require any additional funds?

Not very efficient, but the exhaust gas has a higher temperature than the replacement air getting back in the room. If the difference is enough to also make up for the energy input to the unit you get a cooler room. Otherwise you certainly can get negative efficiency and heat the room further.

I never made the claim universal healthcare is unrealistic. Some level of universal health care is affordable and desirable. Canada has a 2 tier universal healthcare system. The second tier includes private payments and insurance and includes, in part, going to the US to access services that would not otherwise be available or to avoid waiting for services that are. It's far from perfect, but I wouldn't trade it. We certainly wouldn't have it if we also wanted free university education for all and some of the other "generous offers" many of the Dem candidates are espousing.

Certainly can't agree with you on Sanders, who unfortunately has dragged Warren further left than she might otherwise. There isn't enough money. The current economy is driven by capitalism, and boosted by the subsidies of tax cuts, deregulation to the detriment of the environment, and deficit spending. The Dems are going to kill the golden goose, which will already be suffering from an extended flight and having gotten a significant amount of oil in it's feathers.

Compare Trumps consistent claim that he was "exonerated" by the Mueller report (he wasn't) with the Democrats claims that the only thing stopping Mueller from indicting Trump was the Office of Legal Council (also untrue) https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/nadler-misrepresents-mueller-testimony/ Both sides lie. It might take a committee of Dems to lie as much as Trump does as an individual...but they seem to be up to the task. They are risking it backfiring when they do so...especially given the righteous indignation they express with it.

I would give you Yang, and accept someone at least arguing that of Warren...it starts getting pretty thin after that. Few have accounted for the costs of their (many unrealistic) policies to even a vague degree. Biden is far from the bottom of that pack.

That statement is accurate. It's not overstating. It is a good example of... ...part of the narrative. Now...how hard was that?

Members of the Democratic Party generally. Their leadership more specifically.

The Dems are placing their hopes for 2020 on that narrative. To the extent it's true it helps their cause. Overstating it the way they do risks doing the opposite. Must be frustrating to see the overstating get all the press.

That goes for the left as well. Pretty common right across the spectrum.

Wouldn't it be better to just win in 2020 (for the right reasons)...and not have to wait for that in 2024? Like how much will it help if he is impeached or indicted? Will it signal that somehow integrity should prevail, the way the Dems are going about it?