J.C.MacSwell

Don't worry. I realize one of the parties is currently more openly sexist than the other.

I Agree. I believe a woman could win, without a doubt, and from either party.

Just run anonymously, and spend no money...call yourself and your platform "door #3"

If it's Trump vs Hillary in 2020 an independent just might win election...

That part. I know you have a lot better understanding of this than I do, I'm just surprised you seemed unaware of a pretty common layman's interpretation... ...like this meme...throw an amoeba a couple billion years to the left

It applied when they chose the name...Evolution. Prior to that did the word have a specific biological context that was inherently (no pun intended) different? I don't believe it did. I think the term was chosen as it suited the explanation of the development from simpler to more complex and higher order species.

Hi CY. I understand your points, and would agree, but prior to some level of your education did you not consider Evolution to be based on what the word "evolution" means when not referring to Evolution specifically? There is definitely an implication in the name.

Pretty much the same. The trails I go on are not technical. Rail trails (railway beds converted to gravel or even sometimes pavement) or prepared multi-use trails.

I was as well. I have ready access to quite a few trails, so any bad impacts should be pretty limited...as long as I don't wipe out into a tree or a rider/runner coming the other way.

Not sure what I would do without a bike. I am amazed at the quick recovery compared to other forms of exercise. I think it is good for arthritis, generally speaking, gets the blood flowing with low impact.

Maximum heart rate is typically assumed to be 220 - your age in years.

Why not simply move on? Would you have neg repped a similar post with a position you agreed with? Would you even have considered it a smart ass response if directed at someone you disagree with? My biggest problem with neg reps is how they are directed at new members, they have no way of knowing why they are getting neg repped, and sometimes there is piling on. Maybe it is their apparent attitude but they see opposing views getting positive reps with essentially the same type of language, or smart ass response.

Thanks iNow Hi Ten oz I pretty much agree with most of this. What I meant by ignoring issues was ignoring seemingly (to me at the time) minor issues with regard to certain policies, essentially not listening to a large segment of the population. I hoped and expected Clinton to win (of course I had no vote, and was not fully aware of what was happening). Trump should not have gotten 10% of the voters never mind 40+% IMO. I know I did not expect it to be close, and when it became close I still didn't expect Trump to win... Other than that I pretty much agree with what you have stated, though I don't recall anyone but Trump claiming he was innocent (he wasn't even proven or declared not guilty, but simply given his appointment)...but I guess Trump is Republican and no one denied it.

I think that is a fair question. Was 2016 "going high" or " going normal/medium" while ignoring many issues? (They still "won" the popular vote, despite Trump going low) But it is a fair question. Is what they are currently doing a good strategy? Will it seem to have worked if they do as well in this election as was expected in any case?

LOL. I wouldn't even suggest that about Trump... Why do you feel the need to overstate what I say? Are you a Democrat pundit?

I'm suggesting. From a moral point of view they are responsible for their own part in it. From a tactical point of view their current attempt to "match Trump" may work, but may also backfire, and they seemed like they had better options.

What equivalency am I "suggesting"? If you mean Hirono, Booker, Kamala Harris, Clinton, Holder et al, as individuals, you are misreading my posts. If you mean the same for that extended group by committee... 1. How is it (currently) false? 2. Trump is no more rude and obnoxious than he ever was...it is already factored in, in the minds of voters. His approval rating, though poor, can actually increase simply by not saying anything particularly rude or unacceptable to most American values...and it can increase even if he keeps slinging mud if the Democrats do the same. Democrats had a clear win in this area...now it is approaching a tie as they get sucked into this. That leaves "the economy stupid" (Bill Clinton reference, not directed at anyone) vs all the dumb/dishonourable things Trump has done (rhetoric aside, which as per above already factored); with the GOP, despite being aligned with Trump, seeming reasonable by comparison. ( Meantime Trump gets a free ride on the economy, as if it was all him, LOL. So...who do you hold your nose and vote for? Current Republicans (aligned with Trump) or current Democrats? If you can't respect either how and why do you cast your vote?

What does this mean in context to what I said that you quoted? Almost everyone here has dumped on Trump, most of it for good reason. "not heard a peep" is simply inaccurate if iNow was alluding to posts on this Forum. On it's own, this is absolutely correct, but why did you quote what you did before stating it?

Can you not see that, though it might work as a call to action for the left (get the vote out etc.), it may also motivate the right and disaffect the moderates and independents. Sadly it is hardly one or two, and the context is often intentionally vague, Where have you not heard a peep with regard to Trumps antics? If you mean here, you might want to pull your head out of...ah...the sand.

I'm with Michelle Obama as to what motto is more appropriate... https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/10/11/michelle-obama-today-show-orig-acl.cnn

Thanks Ten oz. I hadn't realized he had qualified it in the same speech. I think it still amounts to inciting the extreme left, and enabling Trump and the extreme right, but (hopefully) less so in this case if he later qualified it.

Start by looking for a particularly hairy spouse...

How quickly they forget...

Where did I claim they were? I accused them of extreme rhetoric, without qualifying to make it clear. (which can incite violence they won't be taking part in, and would quickly distance themselves from) Your confirmation bias read what I have been saying as "Democrats calling for violence". You might want to ask why you read it that way...but I doubt you will.

Again, I am asking the opposite. What can you do to strive for political gains while reducing the risk of violence? (OT, what can be done to move further from Civil War?) Here you are defending incivility and civil disobedience on one hand (all examples given are good causes) and at the same time claiming none of the democrats are calling for it... Here is another example: How is it so clear to you that he is asking for law abiding protest? Who does he think will "get in Congresspeoples faces"? Why is he so sure those people will take part in a mature protest? Where does he make it clear no one should be made to feel threatened?