J.C.MacSwell

His odds of entering the race are far from zero...so given that...his odds are not zero. If Harris drops out, her odds are zero, but even though that is a possibility her odds are not zero at this point. Is this that difficult to understand?

Why can you simply not accept that he is one of those favoured? Is it such a big deal to take a balanced position? Not the most favoured, but second only to Harris, and ahead of both Warren and Booker here: https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures It's not all or none at this point.

Second only to Harris here: https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures

He is one of those favoured to win the Democrat ticket.

O'Rourke is not just a Democrat, he is one of those favoured to win the Democrat ticket...as of course you know. No doubt, but I would suggest better than another shutdown.

Yes. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/02/15/beto-orourke-id-take-the-wall-down/23670633/

Geography/anatomy

Or even simply bound to the premise that some Bible or other, or some subset of it, is factual. If you agree to allow that premise you can only look for contradictions within the Bible (or said subset of it) to debate. Any other evidence can easily be "proven" logically to be yet another coincidence, and given that nothing in science is absolutely proven, you simply cannot expect to win by bringing science into it, without getting agreement from the outset that the debate will be based on scientific methods.

So...I guess it's not that one?

I think this supports Trump's claims that he is the least sexist and racist individual on the planet

Around these parts (pun intended), in Canada the N-word and C-word are considered verboten, much worse than the rest, but I know what you mean.

Thanks. I wasn't offended. I was surprised you used the term until I found the link. It seems it is offensive yet acceptable on your side of the pond.

You do realize you are using terms that are derogatory towards women? I realize you are not directing it toward women, so perhaps you are not making the connection? Or maybe it is gender neutral now in the UK? http://time.com/24990/how-a-bunch-of-c-words-got-into-the-oxford-english-dictionary/

It seems you have to know an awful lot these days not to offend people, other than not saying anything. Good manners, adherence to tolerant principles, and absence of mal-intent does not seem to be enough.

Right. The Earth frame locally is "essentially" an inertial frame, but if you in Canada make the mistake of assuming it is a true one you pretty quickly end up in the ditch. (worse in the UK as you pull into oncoming traffic) Of course no one makes that type of mistake...at least not for that reason.

It's the set of frames where the physics itself is essentially the simplest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference Basing your driving on a true inertial frame would require you to keep track of too many things with respect to both vehicle and road movement, due to the Earth's spin, revolution around the Sun which is revolving around the Galaxy etc etc. No one would of course do that, so I am jesting in warning against it.

Whatever you do...don't pick a true inertial frame...WAY too much to keep track of...

Her wording was certainly appropriate. It is reasonable to accept it at face value, but with caution. I think time will tell.

Right where I am. Mentally.

Political yes. Legal no.

But...who wouldn't want to put a couple bucks on Sarah Huckabee Sanders with a 250 to 1 payoff?

I actually had one in the eighties! ...well...actually it was a used Chevy Vega I got for $500 in 1981...but John DeLorean did oversee the launch of that car...

We are all at relativistic speeds with respect to other frames. We can never be at anything but rest in our own (current) one. So...did I manage to "Dodge" your objection?

My idea is simple. Get in your car. Shift into drive. Choose an appropriate reference frame, and Voila! Relativistic speed.

Good post. I will try to respond to this later.