J.C.MacSwell

You don't like the way I worded it. Fair enough. I'm not tied to the rhetoric either way...all I am saying is what the words mean, not implying anything negative. I don't agree with your assessment that he intends to keep the military the same size, or substantially the same size. Maybe you prefer a direct quote: "Today, we say to the military-industrial-complex that we will not continue to spend $700 billion a year on the military — more than the next 10 nations combined," the White House hopeful told the crowd. "We're going to invest in affordable housing, we're going to invest in public education, we're going to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure — not more nuclear weapons and never-ending wars." Now. Bernie is correct about a lot of things, generally on one side of the equation. I just don't buy into the fact that he will run everything more efficiently, simply because it is possible. (it's always possible) I think he will make the military smaller. I just can't say I blame him for that.

He is. Your explanation notwithstanding, he still intends to make significant cuts. Don't assume I'm necessarily against him on this, my point is that Putin wouldn't be. https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-promises-to-cut-and-reinvest-us-defense-spending-2019-3

Sanders is in favour of significantly less military spending in favour of more spending on social programs. A sizable reduction of the US Military is enough for Putin to favour him over not just his Democrat rivals, but over Trump as well. That and maximising US political polarization and discord would make Putin favour Sanders.

I was trying to figure out what I might have said that was unclear to you.

Which protest would you feel more inclined to support?

First they came for the Socialists... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Ye see Dim...in the end it's all about me...

If I'm holding up a train because I don't like the fact that they won't let me use pesticides on my own lawn...that's a little different from doing the same to protest a law that requires me to be someone's butler because I have grey hair.

I don't think this is something you can generalize. Is it?

No waitin' around for a Boston tea party...

Okay. I only saw highlights from last night but if I had to pick a winner this time it was the GOP. (dare I say Trump?) It seems Bloomberg struggled, especially early. Bernie did fine Democratic Candidacy wise, but took some hits that may hurt him if he wins it. Warren was certainly on the war path (forgive me), but again did very well. (I think the attacks on Bloomberg were fair game...he just didn't handle them well) Biden was there (he was, wasn't he?) Everyone else was sub par? Where is the candidate to beat Trump? Bernie could start pulling away here...

Also by default. If you are within the bounds of legally acceptable protest you are not being civilly disobedient. By "them" of course you can't mean all of them. Your examples are from those of the good ones. I hate to invoke Goodwin here but 1930's German disobedience lead to different laws (and generally accepted value system).

Flat Earthers...there arguments are terra bull.

This would be my argument, in part, why felons should get to vote. (One of the few areas I would agree with Bernie Sanders) Pretty hard though, to find a description for civil disobedience, generally, that we will all agree is appropriate An extreme example: Debatably, the US 2nd amendment sees gun ownership as essential to potentially necessary overthrow of an oppressive government.

My right to do something everyone recognizes as illegal starts when I claim I'm protesting...

One of a number of water's properties that have profound effects for life, at least as we know it.

If confined it would still become a solid at much lower temperature and higher pressure. If confined to a density no greater than 1.0 it would be a different crystal structure than regular ice. http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice_phases.html With 18 possible crystal structures it may be a mixture of several types.

Compare with a hang glider (larger area that works at lower speed) or wind suit (needs high speed to get lift) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsuit_flying Assuming constant coefficient of lift (somewhat reliable but fails catastrophically after stall point), lift goes up linearly with area, but with the square of apparent wind speed With 1/10th the speed you would need the same area to get 1/100th the lift.

She's a nice lady. If her daughter-in-law had supported him as well he would have easily had twice the support.

Maybe tulip bulbs...they keep longer than eggs

Nice to see Klobuchar with her double digit percent lead, which she has maintained for some time now... Explanation: They literally released early results of her having 8 votes (double anyone else) out of a total of 27, while the polls are still open. Nice little boost for her... Can't get advertising cheaper than that!

The link (currently) seems to be people playing some estimating game, but not as to upcoming NH results.

Any link (I briefly tried a few google searches but nothing came up for last night) I just realized they are an hour + long... Here's the polls I generally look at: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

My current New Hampshire prediction: 1.Sanders 2.Buttigieg 3.Warren 4,5 Klobuchar/Biden (toss up) 6.Yang I would not at all be surprised to see Biden come 5th

Lot's of polling out of NH, mostly with Sanders leading Buttigieg, followed by Warren, Biden Klobuchar. The next debate will take place prior to the Nevada and South Carolina primaries. With Bloomberg added. It will be interesting to see how he does and how the others react to him. It might be not until after Super Tuesday that we get a real sense, and it may still be wide open after that.

That base is seemingly more divided, and Trump's GOP probably more united, than they were 3 years ago. So what do we think? Bloomberg to the rescue? I can't see Bernie's grassroots crowd providing support for a Billionaire taking over. Same to a lesser extent if it's Buttigieg with his "wine cave" of billionaires. (I think he's had 40 support his campaign) Biden? Would his supporters wake up in time to vote on election day? (why do they put the supporters looking like they're falling asleep behind him when he's speaking...are they trying to make him seem energetic by comparison?) Warren? Too bad she chased Bernie to the Left before accusing him of being a sexist...if she had stayed more moderate and praised his good intentions she'd be winning this...with at least a good shot at beating Trump (especially if they hadn't impeached the SOB to his benefit!) Yang? I'm still hoping but he's still a long shot. Klobuchar? Steyer? Gabbard? Long shots. Michelle Obama? Still not too late... Romney, LOL? Trump himself? (DNC gotta stop Sanders somehow) https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-mulls-asking-donald-trump-to-run-as-democrat-in-eff-1841432132 “He’s obviously not our first choice, but Trump has a track record of winning elections, not to mention he does well with the conservative voters we’ll need to swing some red states blue—if that’s who we need to ask to ensure Bernie doesn’t win, we’ll do it,” said DNC chairman Tom Perez,