swansont

I don’t know if you could validly flip an election that way. It’s a matter of violating election law, rather than invalidating votes, and in a functioning government you could remove illicitly-elected folks; active solicitation of foreign interference seems like it’s an impeachable offense. But the GOP, as we know, had no interest in convicting for other offenses.

You assume he’s a rational adult. I’m sure he doesn’t see things this way.

False equivalence. There was evidence of foreign interference in 2016, voter fraud was not widely alleged, and we didn’t see this flurry of baseless lawsuits trying to overturn an election that was much closer - the lawsuits were typically challenging laws that tended to disenfranchise voters, and happened before the election. Trump’s main “issue” seems to be that he lost. The cheating is inferred on the premise that it’s the only way he could lose, rather than being based on evidence. And Trump is so concerned that he’s golfing...again.

Not at this point. His rhetoric was mostly centered on stopping the counting of mail-in ballots, which heavily favored Biden. All they would have to do is interpret them in a way that’s favorable to Trump There’s the rub. It’s not close enough.

He’s basically stated that he thinks he has a majority of the court in his pocket, and he wanted the cases to go before that court.

Oh, yes, I agree. It’s so they can say they filed the lawsuit, and complain about the system when it gets shot down. That they had been in a position to fix the alleged flaws never comes up, and many don’t realize that the lawsuits themselves aren’t alleging fraud, because the lawyers don’t want to get caught lying in court. But lying on twitter or in the parking lot of a landscaping business doesn’t carry those repercussions. Today I read where one of their suits mixed up Michigan and Minnesota. (more votes cast in MI than there are registered voters in MN, or something like that) “These aren’t very bright guys, and things got out of hand” applies once again. https://www.fastcompany.com/90578730/trump-supporter-election-lawsuit-affidavit-seems-to-mix-up-michigan-and-minnesota

There needs to be some federal statue or constitutional issue, AFAIK. I think a lot of details of elections deal with state law. This isn’t the government bringing the cases, though, it’s the Trump campaign. edit: looks like it’s roughly an even split between state and federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election There has to be some reason to appeal to a higher level, and many of these are just badly-formulated suits that there’s no leverage. If you e.g. have no standing to bring the suit, there’s probably no basis for an appeal

He’s been thwarted because he can’t get his cases to the Supreme Court, where the fix would be in. Even where he’s gotten in front of a potentially sympathetic judge, there’s nothing to the cases that gives them a chance - no legal point they can leverage to have judge rule in their favor. I also don’t think these judges would stick their necks out when there aren’t enough votes in play to make a difference. It’s scary to contemplate what might happen if the races had been closer, and Trump’s legal team more competent.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged

Charles 3781 has not only made no effort to improve their post quality while in the mod queue, they have decided to troll the mods. They have chosen...poorly.

! Moderator Note You need to summarize the video if you are going to link to it. Posting just to advertise your youtube channel is against the rules. Also: a video is not a research paper

It’s not info from Trump, it’s from the intelligence (and other) professionals. The briefings that Trump ignores unless they’re hidden in a piece of cheese.

Yes, it would speed up air replacement. The question is by how much, and that requires analysis. It could be that the Costco situation is for show, or it could have a measurable effect. Can’t tell

No, actually, it's not. You've told us what you don't mean by policy. And. you then linked to a definition that's consistent with what others are using, which isn't consistent with your secret definition. You have not made it clear what you mean, and instead blame the people asking you to clarify, for not being able to read your mind. Here you say you have a definition that differs from what CharonY used, but then link to the wikipedia definition. When I apply that definition, you tell me that's not the one you are using. But somehow your contradiction is my failing.

You simply linked to the wiki definition, which is "A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol." So nothing here is inconsistent with the definition you provided, except your insistence that it means something else that you haven't actually specified..

Yes it mentions ""Presidential Executive Orders" as an example of policy. Not as its definition. So you get to make up your own definition of a word, and we're all supposed to go with that? That's not how language works.

The fact that they are spinning it allows one to infer the policy. Or are you under the impression that WH officials go out and say whatever they want to the press, rather than having coordinated talking points?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/venus-might-not-have-much-phosphine-dampening-hopes-for-life/ “Promising sign of life on Venus might not exist after all” Repeatability can be a cruel mistress...

Add dove and dash to the list

It already has, so it probably will in the future. A significant number of people live past 100 already.

Yes, you are quite correct. Written permission, because you have something to point to if there is a subsequent disagreement.

Permission requires a response. You don't have it until they actually respond in the affirmative. (This applies to more than copyright.)

dock has been banned as a sockpuppet of redstone, Trần Thành, Energizer and the logic00x triplets

That was the graph that clearly shows temperature increasing over the last ~140 years. So no, your point doesn't stand. The animation shows that looking at only a few locations wouldn't give us an accurate read on what is happening, since there are fluctuations (i.e. weather happens) Water and land each have some specific heat capacity, so their temperature will rise or fall if the absorb or release energy. Q = mc∆T If I measure in enough places to be representative of the whole, I can sum up the Q for all those areas and figure out if heat was absorbed or emitted overall. The worldwide average ∆T is representative of that value, which (as Area54 pointed out) is easier for non-experts to grasp. Saying the global average increased by 1ºC is saying we absorbed enough energy for the whole surface to increase by 1º even though some areas saw a larger increase and some saw a smaller increase, or possibly a decrease, because this is not a system in steady-state

How do you figure that? “This animation shows monthly temperatures for January–December 2019 compared to each month's 1981-2010 average.” 1981-2010 is not considered pre-industrial by most historians