J.C.MacSwell

I'm not against Trump contesting the election in a legal manner. It won't get him anywhere. He can point to anecdotal evidence of illegal voting, but it won't be significant enough to cast doubt on the election for most Americans IMO. At the same time do you see rioting in the streets? Compare with what it would have undoubtedly been like if Trump had won. Both can be true. Hilary can be disliked and Biden can be liked while still have misgivings about Democrat politics. Didn't Biden outperform down-ticket Democrats? That's democracy. They voted. They didn't tell us why. When you think of a better system let us all know.

LOL. That's pretty cynical! Trump of course will be the first to agree though, and the Dems will deny any help toward it from his administration, even if it was a routine one.😷

They participated in the democratic process though, didn't they? ...and for many their vote may have been intended as cast as a vote against the alternative, rather than intended as support for Trump.

Part of it is also the asymmetry. My first 10 years affected all my memories up to turning 10, my last 10 just a fraction of them. So I recall relatively smaller fractions of all I remember as I age, for each decade of my existence. That can lead me the illusion that time is passing more quickly.

Here Biden seems to making an effort in that direction: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/09/joe-biden-coronavirus-task-force-nr-vpx.cnn Hopefully it makes a difference.

Not in California: https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/11/04/california-voters-reject-affirmative-action-measure-despite-summer-of-activism-9424555

Granted, but is coexist really such a term? What is the specific meaning of coexist in physics? Where would one find it? I expect you might know better than I, but I fail to see any advantage in defining the term such that it means objects that may never have overlapped in their existence. I realize that's somewhat an argument from incredulity, thus the questions.

Agree with Puerto Rico, but surely you aren't suggesting Statehood for American Samoa (better treatment and some provision for voting rights aside)?

Fair comment, but coexist does not normally mean "coexist in spacetime". Generally speaking, I think they are somewhat interchangeable with "simultaneously" being more specific. As a somewhat counter example...your same example...no one would claim they ever coexisted without that context modifier "in spacetime". They would normally be an example of things that did not coexist. As you essentially pointed out, there is no frame they could coexist in or be simultaneous in, notwithstanding they both exist in spacetime.

Agree with that. Also IMO they lost an opportunity to regain the Senate for venturing as far to the left as they did. I think a reasonably progressive agenda may still be alive and well, just not the AOC version. The battle for the Senate, however, is far from over: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/andrew-yang-moving-atlanta-help-democrats-win-senate-runoffs/BTGI65ATNZHTJMJWFXRLAZV4HU/ Two more Senate seats and the Dems control the Senate, given Kamala Harris has the VP tie breaking vote. (I was quite happy to see Susan Collins win in Maine though)

Can but not should. Photons for example do not have mass, but can contribute to the mass of a system that they're in.

...and after January 20... plus they have to get him out of there:

I'm suggesting, or at least hoping, that as President elect Biden can have a more positive influence on the pandemic effort, and as a lame duck POTUS Trump might lose some influence on it. That thought did occur to me when I mentioned that, but surely not?? It is on topic though, given the potential for spreading the infection further.

Okay. Then why do you feel the need to say essentially the same thing?

I followed that up with this: Still confused?

I think I've made it pretty clear of the context I intended, at least to anyone reading in good faith. Never did I say there could not be other uses of the word, but if it helps I meant a more formal definition than the broader sense it could be used. Is that clear?

Everything I posted, at least with regard to the current "misunderstanding" is on topic or to support it. Clarifications on semantics included.

What are you talking about dim?

You seem to be struggling with the definition of "context". Is this disingenuously or honestly? Yes. I can use the word policy in the way I described. I can even clarify my usage. But I can't force your understanding.

Policy, in the context I'm using is not something that can be inferred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy Note it mentions "Presidential Executive Orders". Read my posts assuming that's the context and maybe we can dispense with questions like this.

What I see: Assuming my planet is stationary wrt Earth, just displaced by 100 ly distance: I see what I would consider an impossible (wormhole hypotheses aside) FTL spatial displacement of 100 ly, both to Earth and later back to my planet, but steady time lapse in my frame, which I share with Earth. WRT some other frames I would travel forward and then backward in time, or backward and then forward in time, depending on how the frames are moving wrt mine, What I don't see in what you described, but could using instantaneous travel: If I could actually do what is suggested then I could presumably ratchet myself back or forward in time in my planet/Earth frame, say arrive back before I even left, by switching to and making use of other frames and doing the same instantaneous travel. I will not have done that in what you described, but with similar extra steps using the rules of physics as we know it and the extra "superpower" of instantaneous travel in any frame I'm in...then I could. I could go back and kill my grandfather, or even duplicate myself multiple times over and form JC ARMY. If only allowed instantaneous communication I would need you and a few others, spatially separated on different frames, to go into business as Galactica Stock Tip Inc.

Not by the context I'm using. If you are sure he had a policy to "spin the death toll" then supply a link. I've read anecdotes that the "left" "spun the death toll". I take them with more than a grain of salt, but I don't automatically believe every claim against Trump either. They were generally not correct. Whose were, in hindsight? (and at this point hindsight is far from 20/20). But they certainly weren't as bad as Trump's personal actions, IMO. That said, his idiocy almost certainly exacerbated the situation, but the "went to hell" is not on him alone, by any means.

That post was with regard to your seeming to claim that "All spatial points are separated by time also". I don't think standard physics would agree with that.

Clearly we aren't using the same definition of "policy" or "policies". His recklessness and at times outright stupidity with regard to Covid 19 are not policy (my definition). Along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

His policies with regard to Covid was the only context intended. (the rest would be off topic) I'm not advocating for Trump's Covid policies but there is some merit in allowing the States to make decisions for there own set of circumstances. If in fact 700 died due to exposure at one of his rallies, or other poor decisions on his part, that is in line with what I said. His Covid policies didn't compel him to do that. That's simply poor judgement, poor leadership, poor safety at his rallies, and setting a poor example. His policies are not as bad as that. He could have had much better outcomes within them. (Biden did)