J.C.MacSwell

Exactly. Not the most democratic process. But I guess 36th place isn't bad: 36 United States of America 0.811 Deficient Democracy https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking At least at this point it's still a democracy. But as Swansont correctly pointed out, that's the expected process.

No. Not that I can tell. Just the odd bit. How will we even know if or when he's in decline? They do point out his constant contradictions, from stretching the truth to outright lies, but since he's done that forever no one associates it with anything but Trump being Trump...except in some circumstances the Law... Back in the day even a small fraction of the type of things he says on a regular basis would kill a political career...we need those days back.

I'm hearing a fair bit about Trump having issues on a number of fronts. Unwillingness to comment on Navalny, asking Senate and House members to work against the border deal, very significant legal issues including rape and business fraud charges with very high negative monetary outcomes, age related concerns of his own, Zelensky calling him out on his unexplained "solution", etc. Also hear a lot about the US economy doing better than expected, inflation reasonable compared to much of the World and better than predicted, etc. I know Biden didn't defeat US Covid singlehandedly with hydroxychloroquine, but we can't expect him to do everything....

I really don't have an issue with his overall record the last 3 years, especially given the hand he was dealt and continues to be dealt. But he has aged 3 years and wants to continue for another 5 rather than the one left in his mandate. Why is the media, right left and centre, focused on GOP talking points? With regard to age and mental decline they are not the only ones bringing it up. Maybe they're not just GOP talking points? I've known a number of people with dementia that on good days seem sharp and engaged, though even then they tend to tire easily. Now I don't know that Biden has dementia, but we do know he has had 2 brain aneurysms requiring surgery and we do know that brain trauma increases risk of mental decline with age, beyond that of a significant association with aging itself. And we've heard him tell untrue stories that could medically be described as confabulation (as opposed to alternatively... intentionally lying) But yeah, I'd still take him over Trump. Not sure I would agree. She had lost a lot of popularity and hiding in the weeds while working in the background may have been best for her. I see at least a possibility of a come back. Currently she's still your Nation's plan B...compare with Plan C...House Speaker Mike Johnson Agree. Haley would be much better than either Biden or Trump, regardless of the fact she's younger and sharper.

Granted it's the expected process, which makes advanced age more of an issue, not less. Given that both candidates are old leads to no choice on that particular metric. It hardly makes it a non-issue. Unfortunately that hasn't lead to a very strong approval rating. The appearance to even among those that might agree with you both is often of that of a good team lead by a man in mental decline. Besides the increased likelihood of mental decline with age, longevity is a factor. Quite a significant percentage of 81 and 77 year olds today are expected to die before January 2029, the end of the next term. Wouldn't you prefer Warren up against this old, crazy and a dangerous asshole?

Kind of a "deplorable" assumption don't you think? The type of assumption that probably more lead to Trump winning in 2016 than the fact that the leading proponent of those assumptions was a woman. (not claiming it wasn't a factor either plus or minus, but I think the US has been ready for a woman POTUS for some time...they just tired enough of H Clinton to allow Trump to squeak out a win)

Incumbent? No. Eighty year old incumbent as per context for this thread? First time ever. Until Biden, Reagan was the oldest President ever when he left office. Trump will be older than that before the election in November and Biden was already older than that on day one of the present term.

It's extremely problematic getting those past their prime to give up driving their vehicles, even at ages that the majority should not be behind the wheel. Yet here we have very arguably the most important job in the World being left to either a late seventies Trump, who at least has to compete for his ticket, or an eighty year old incumbent who seems to be getting his ticket uncontested. Not the greatest democratic process. The checks and balances seem a little off balance.

So if I have a charged particle on my desk emitting a photon due to constraint against gravity alone, that I can detect with my photon detector with the detector in free fall, there will be no detection whatsoever if it's not in freefall? Or no detection only if the detector is comoving and similarly constrained against gravity? Or I guess detectable or not in other frames dependant on how there movement is with regard to the Rindler horizon? (Does the wavelength of the photon approach infinite with respect to a frame coincident (somehow?) with the Rindler horizon?

Thanks Marcus I'll check out Rindler horizon and see if I can make sense of it.

Where does Putin find the time?

LOL, yesterday and the days before, notwithstanding...but you have me there.

I would hope not, but this is going to be much closer than it should be...which will still be true if the Dems win in a landslide...but can we really take anything for granted? Trump may or may not be more likely to win than in 2016 or 2020, but IMO he's considerably more dangerous.

If it's radiating in any frame it should be radiating in every frame. Since it is being accelerated in it's instantaneos inertial frame should it not radiate? Same event should take place in each frame, even if seen differently, correct? What am I missing? Other than inside neutral atoms, shouldn't any charged particle constrained in a gravitational field (so not in free fall) radiate, even if negligibly/undetectably? Special conditions (that I don't understand) aside: "According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation. In some classical electron models a dmitistribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emittedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition#:~:text=According to the Larmor formula,that no radiation is emitted." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition#cite_note-Pearle_1978-1

Not sure the voters would appreciate the bait and switch, especially to Harris. (Though I think there is currently a move to recover her popularity which is much needed to run on the ticket as VP)

Did INow get to it with his orange crayons?

Pocket change for Putin.

Definitely a good idea to clean them once you're happy again...

We don't know how lucky we are, boys...

Fun fact: Jimmy Carter has lived post presidency more than 10 years longer than any other president ever has. (43 years and counting...plenty of time for his successors to make any adjustments to changing circumstances)

I don't think the fallout, if there will be any, from Putin doing in Navalny would have registered on any polls yet.

I would like to think that Trump's base is not as committed as he would hope (and given it's Tump you can read that as "he should expect"). They can't be all of one mind. Even the rightmost news medias seem to be holding Putin for his treatment if not directly ordered assassination of Navalny. Trump has not yet commented, and has been a longtime admirer if not mutual supporter of Putin. Haley is calling his silence out. Accurately. If she doesn't get at least a temporary bump in the polls at Trump's expense Trump will likely win in November if Biden struggles or if their is any significant drop in the economy even beyond his control. Mostly my opinion of course. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel a little more optimistic. Hopefully I won't have to and I'll see that bump. Also just noticed Stringy's post...hopefully that has an effect as well.

Thanks. Hopefully thidmir will clarify and expand on the purpose of that post.

I don't know for certain but the statement and graph didn't seem to be in support of climate denial...quite the opposite, though I really should have directed my post more at Bufofrog. Hopefully thidmir will clarify.

Wasn't that the context thidmir intended?