npts2020

Not sure what "Green Deal" you are talking about but the original platform for a Green New Deal as proposed by the Green Party in 2006 says nothing about CO2 certificate emissions or anything of the ilk. I would be interested in knowing what part(s) of it you feel are "a fraud", other than the fact that any action on it will have been put off for nearly 2 decades already. Here is a text of the document. https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

This could be an interesting discussion on its own but if you believe modern cosmologists, there is a point where the universe (possibly the majority of it) is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. It seems to me, that would explain why the entire sky isn't bright and does little to show whether the universe is infinite or not.

What makes you think the universe was "made up" and hasn't always existed? Just because you have a linear existence with a fairly definable beginning and end because of time, doesn't mean the universe must behave in a similar manner. Personally, I have a lot more faith in the laws of conservation of matter and energy than I do in the relevance of time in relation to the universe as a whole.

I think this is a great idea. IMO the US ought to require that all products and services bought or sold in this country follow US law from exploration to discovery, extraction, refinement, fabrication, assembly, transport, storage and sale. However, it seems the longer it takes to do this, the less effective it will be as the US loses its former stranglehold on world trade. How different would the world be today if this had been done 60 or 70 years ago?

Welcome to the forum willferral. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about chemistry to help you but there are several people here quite knowledgeable on the topic who might. You did post in the appropriate place.

I don't know what the numbers are for just Republicans, since they will be the ones (except in a few states with open primaries)to decide who is the Republican nominee. When Trump beats his closest competitor in her home state by 20 points, including all of the Republicans who don't like him, I don't see things getting closer throughout the rest of the country even if he is convicted of multiple crimes. You have to remember, a large plurality (if not in fact a majority) of Republicans still like to claim the election in 2000 was stolen and that all of the charges against Trump are politically motivated (never mind the fact that The Donald and his companies have been in court literally thousands of times and with numerous convictions previous to any of the current suits). Democrats should hope Trump wins because I don't think Biden can beat anyone else (totally my 2⍧).

Maybe but I am not that optimistic. Besides, it seems any likely VP will be as bad or worse policy wise. If he actually ended up both in jail and President, think of the taxpayer money that could be saved on paying for secret service protection and golfing junkets.

It won't matter. There is nothing to keep "The Donald" (as he used to be known) from running for or serving as President while in jail. In 1920 Eugene Debs got over 3% of the vote while serving a jail term for sedition (because of his vocal opposition to WW1).

Since 1873 there has been a government (federal) publication called "The Congressional Record" that prints everything said on the floor of Congress and the Senate and who voted for what. It is printed monthly and, when Congress is in session, it is published online daily. When I was a bicycle messenger, at least one of us would wait on the doorstep for the GPO (government printing office) to open every month when the Records were due out to pick one (or more often several) up for clients. Apparently, being one of the first to see what is printed is a big deal, especially for multinational corporations and investment types.

I'd say god is pretty ugly if it looks like any blastocyst....

What happens if scientists bring an individual to life using only an egg or sperm? Will females then be required to attempt pregnancy every time they ovulate? Will it be a serious crime for a male to ejaculate anywhere other than a fertile womb? Seems to me, the whole notion of when life "begins" (I look at as more of a continuum) or when you become a person leaves plenty of room for interpretation or debate and therefore should be up to individuals to decide for themselves. It is interesting that the supposedly "small government" types seem to be the ones most eager to have the government settle the question so they can enforce their (often hypocritical) views on everyone.

Except I know a fair number of 80 year olds who would make far better Presidents than most much younger possibilities. Sessions like the Prime Minister's questioning at Parliament in Britain would go a long way toward showing whether a leader is mentally competent but with bought and paid for incumbency where it benefits more than a few to keep mental decline under wraps, this kind of thing is highly unlikely.

Since the majority of SCOTUS seems to supposedly be "originalists"/"literalists" when interpreting the law, maybe the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted to allow only weaponry available at the time of its writing.

IMO the engineering difficulties would not be as great as the political and financial ones. Near as I can tell, the main engineering difficulties are related to scale and the fact that it has not been done before.

Seems to me conscience comes from ones personal philosophical leanings. Consciousness, on the other hand, is one of those "eye of the beholder" type things where it means exactly whatever the person using the term wants it to mean unless there is some other agreed upon definition

It's interesting Butyric Acid is a fairly common ingredient in fragrance making. I have heard it said that every good fragrance has at least one awful ingredient, tho...

Stop F-ing misrepresenting what I have said Mr. Knowitall and post the quote where I have ever stated that being removed from the ballot doesn't matter or isn't a big deal. What I actually said was that it SHOULDN'T be big deal because of previous instances of people being kicked off the ballot. I don't have to assume anything about your knowledge of ballot access laws and their history...it's pretty obvious.

What is the difference? If an organism manages to propagate, I would say whatever new features are propagated (regardless of how they became a part of it to begin with) have become part of the organisms evolution.

Will be very interesting to see how this turns out. The next step might be growing sciatic nerve cells from stem cells.

That is the ONLY reason it is a big deal. In a world with equality Mr Trump's complaints would be ignored or swept aside like EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE that some political party wanted to exclude from the ballot. Eugene Debs ran his final campaign for President from a jail cell in 1920 with the only outside communication allowed being a single letter each week to his wife. More recently, the Green Party has had to go to court to get or maintain ballot status in multiple states every election since they have existed, the only difference being it hasn't been for a primary election since third parties generally are prevented from running them by the states.

Nice summary. Too bad you couldn't see fit to use the actual quotes in order of exchange instead of your summaries of what you wanted to see me saying but it isn't worth quibbling over. I understand that, you, like most others unfamiliar with ballot access requirements, feel that this is a way bigger deal than the many times similar ballot denial cases have been brought up. In the few cases SCOTUS has bothered to hear, they have generally sided with states over feds and even parties over states; see "Tashjian v Rep Party of Ct." and "California Democratic Party v Jones". Both struck down open primary rules in those states and not ballot access per se, except that in both cases non-party members were excluded from the primary ballot. Interestingly, the party in Connecticut wanted open primaries and SCOTUS struck down a state law not allowing it, whereas, in California the state wanted to impose open primaries on the parties and the parties managed to have the court allow closed primaries. While there is no telling what the current SCOTUS is likely to do, it seems to me, precedence would lead an impartial court to defer to states and parties unless they are in conflict with each other, which I am unsure if is really the case with Mr. Trump. IMO, if they take any of the cases, they will weasel a decision to make Mr. Trump appear on the primary ballot by claiming voters in the 9 states that don't allow write-in votes are "disenfranchised" by not having any means of voting for their candidate if efforts to remove his name occur there. Burdick v Takushi upheld Hawaii's right to not allow write-in votes but SCOTUS also wrote in its opinion that there was sufficient means for Burdick to have had gotten his name on the ballot, a point that I am sure will be brought up at any trial. Unless, SCOTUS is going to overturn this or better define what "sufficient means" is they might not take any of the cases and just allow whatever state supreme courts rule to stand.

Yes, and comprehension increases when you take into consideration the whole statement in context rather than taking just a piece of it to make an argument...

How big of a deal was made of and how much press has ANY of the previous attempts at removing names from ballots received? AFAIK cancer has always been a big deal.

You need to better define what"life" is. If we are talking about organisms like viruses, there are indications there could be life on other planets or their moons in our solar system. If we are referring to LGM (little green men) or the like, the jury is probably still out. Humans have only been able to even detect a planet outside of our solar system for a bit over 30 years and we still have yet to develop the capability to determine exactly what is on any of those planets. OTOH, if you believe evolution to be a valid theory, mathematics say there should be life in many places, especially since some of those places have had a few billion more years to evolve than our small corner of the universe.