J.C.MacSwell

Rapid climate change can certainly make it hard for many current species to survive.

The Sixties...good times...

True for many, but I think that is at least in part what the reputation system is attempting to do...or at least what some posters are often trying to accomplish with it when they dole out points.

I've said this before but IMO the points system is not fair to new posters. Thethinkertank is currently -33 after 67 posts. Let's say there is an improvement over the next 67 posts and it is only -17...that would put them at -50... Not a great hole to dig out from, after having originally started at 0, and improved. The reputation system here is not meaningless, but it should be taken with more than a grain of salt...which is a shame when a good amount of it is based on well written posts.

Why would China sell more to the USA than vice-versa "just by it's sheer size". All other factors being equal it would still be balanced.

Not sure how they can really call it a "debate". Obviously not enough time for each to ask each of the others even one question and have it answered, even superficially.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Yang does. I doubt anyone will really attack his positions, nor do I expect him to really attack theirs, but I think he will add a unique perspective and state it clearly.

So...he really didn't think dating Diana would make him "King of England"?

However reasonable to surmise it is true, the direct evidence would not be available to anyone, and no one would really know to what extent. With the election as close as it was, even a small effect could have made the difference, but that would also be true of many factors (including Comey's announcement on Clinton, especially given the timing)

Comey hurt Clinton more than any foreign nation did, Russia included.

All the same, if I come up with a vehicle that can do 100 miles in 8 feet... ...I want my Nobel Prize

Design a ship that could do the Kessel Run in less than 11 parsecs... Or get clear across the Galaxy in less than a lightyear.

If you have 4 something or others, and you divide them all by 6, you have 24 pieces of something. ...as long as neither man nor dog eats them during that time,

Just to be fair...let's hear Trumps side of things... ...If you don't believe him his staff will set you straight: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/23/trump-stable-genius-1342655

He's still somewhat under the radar but it will be interesting to see how he does in the June debates. I think he could gain a lot of interest, and not just from Democrats.

As long as it is an orbit far enough from the Moon's, I expect it should be fairly stable. I'm not sure how the resonance would have an effect, possibly that could allow a closer orbit. (all probably what you knew or suspected already) Can we call this extra moon "Tanman"?

I certainly haven't checked them all out, but the only candidate I've paid any attention to and been impressed with is Andrew Yang. Some might think Universal Basic Income is just an attempt to buy votes, but I think there is much more to it, and much more to Yang than that. (though that is the linchpin of his platform) Although he is not known to be colluding with Russians Canadians at this point here is his website: https://www.yang2020.com/

They would actually fall at the same rate, if dropped together, and of course that was the experiment performed on the moon.

It appears you will have to run against Trump at some point...you're going to need to sharpen your elbows...

...we just have to convince you to run as a Republican

Finally a candidate we could all get behind...

...or felt paying could be legally avoided. Did he actually declare personal bankruptcy at any point? ...or simply declare a limited liability company, that he owned, bankrupt?

He does seem to be in that small select group... ...of maybe 7 billion or so...

Thanks for the link. I don't think CY's commenting on Trump was off topic. The Democrat Primaries are to a significant degree aimed at beating him in 2020. I was just questioning it's accuracy (and did not claim it was entirely wrong) +1

What analyses was this?