J.C.MacSwell

Some would say yes, some no. Of the ones who say no, what if they were shown a better alternative? What if that alternative came without the insults? How much deceit do you tolerate from those you support? Trump is doing that...few, if any, of his supporters are doing so.

Good thing I didn't insist on that then. Clearly they need a better alternative...not insults.

Disagreeing with Democrat's approach and tactics is hardly a call to censor them.

If you restricted your insults to those people, your justification needs no more than the crimes they have committed.

No. I don't think Trump having gotten elected is justification for insults toward the right, or toward Trump's base, nor will I think it is justified if Trump gets in again, or replaced by a Democrat, in 2020.

First it's "ugly bunch of people", and now "good intentions"? Which is it? Unable or unwilling to provide them with a viable option you feel the need to insult them? Why don't you stick with "basket of deplorables". That worked out well.

You've failed to give them a better alternative. Most support him despite his...let's be kind and call them "antics", not because of them. Of course "despicable behaviour" is more accurate, but the point stands.

I don't recall "all those who support Trump" doing that.

Strong stuff!

Isn't Pascal's principle only an approximation during any fluid transfers, and only exact statically? Doesn't the fact that your device won't actually work highlight that?

Apologies. Thanks to INow.

Thanks Ten oz

What exactly is approval in this context?

The one advantage would be loading the bones to reduce atrophy. A vest may work to do the same without restricting the arms and legs from having to accelerate/decelerate so much mass every time one moved them. But adding 5 times your mass might be a bit much, (better to make the moon wear it as per Phi...just warn your friends on Earth about the new tidal zones...)

balanced by the fluid above the final levels of the weighted surfaces?

I was not as aware of Fox at that time, which prompted my question. Also makes it hard to judge your humour.

Yes normal being in quotes. The actual News side of Fox is still "normal" in this respect, but I don't think it gets the same viewership as the entertainment/opinion/advertising for Trump side. I can't remember the same level of "support" for G W Bush.

I'm not a fan of G W Bush either, but wasn't Fox News more of a "normal" conservative news source at that time? Not questioning the premise that Fox could have made the difference foe Bush also, but if replaced by another conservative news source I don't think it is quite as clear.

The term already is in use as something other than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

Useful or important to the public. There is no implication in the term that they would be interested, or need or wish to know or not know. It could be in the best interest of the public that they don't get to know, for some security reason or such thing. You can work in the best interest of someone in a coma. Same idea.

Finally someone who wants to do something about climate change...about time

Some of his statements sounded like he was trumpeting the Democrat horn in a way that added nothing new. I actually not just wondered about that (or getting parole early), or even still working for Trump...the rational being that he could be hiding stuff he knows while seeming to be saying everything possible against him. "see how much I hate Trump, I must be singing everything I know", when in fact he is only singing what is known that he knows. It seems silly...but if he eventually pardons Cohen on the way out of office ("see how magnanimous I am, I'm not just pardoning all my friends...) OK...it is silly...but the thought came to mind while Cohen added well known anti-Trump talking points where he really had no more to add than what was already out there. Did he say anything else that is actually legally damning to Trump? I hadn't heard the portrait thing before...which essentially I think was theft of money he himself anonymously donated. Was that already known?

The hilarious part of this is that Trump would not even see that he did anything immoral when he did that, and believe it should be "no harm no foul" legally, which of course it is not.

I'm not, but if a lady named Yin runs, he'd make a great running mate... ...and I'll see myself out...

I think it's because I took the extreme view that it wouldn't hurt Booker and Harris with Democrats, that Republicans would make more of it than it really deserved, and that Harris and Booker might learn something from it...a totally preposterous position even if exactly true (though I claim it as opinions not facts) given that hate crimes of the alt right are on the rise, and Trump does much worse than what Harris and Booker did, and on a much more regular basis (both of which pretty much everyone agrees with).