In review, [Project Veritas]'s videos are edited in a way that makes them difficult to fact check. Often his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more. In general, the narrative created by [Project Veritas], whether edited or not is to portray liberals in a negative light.

She's apparently had remarkably little judicial experience (all of it in appeals court), and practiced law for a scant three years. She's an academic who spent sometime clerking before being appointed to the 7th Circuit in 2017. I prefer that Supreme Court Justices have more experience of how the law actually works, and it's impact on actual people. — Ciceronianus the White

Conservatives are at their heart believers in law and order. I understand the left's position that the right's concept of law and order amounts to suppression of certain groups, but the point remains that a conservative is committed to protecting the status quo and the existing institutions. For that reason, the fear that there will be a conservative rebellion in any literal sense is unfounded. Those criticisms are better levied against the left and is evidenced by the fact that is the left that speaks of radical rule change (elimination of the electoral college, increasing the size of the Supreme Court, and defunding the police) and who literally takes to the streets with riots, looting, and violence. — Hanover

The right is not collecting their guns and building their fences in preparation of an offensive attack but they are holing up in anticipation of defending themselves from the zombie apocalypse they fear will make it out to the suburbs and countryside where they reside. — Hanover

Get rid of the ballots and there'll be a peaceful … it won't be a transfer frankly it will be a continuation. — Trump

The Benghazi attack, where terrorists and a violent mob of rioters killed Americans, and where cries for assistance were met with a hand wave. — NOS4A2

I wager they would still be alive had Trump been in charge. — NOS4A2

This could be so far reaching though, with a bigger conservative majority on the supreme court, they may vote to stop the counting of mail in ballots and hand the presidency to Trump. Will be like Bush all over again. — MSC

He didn’t have professional agitators and anarchists blocking the entrance and threatening attendees. — NOS4A2

And at the risk of being called a Trumpet, I would like to point out that he added he does not want to create a panic. — Derukugi

The toilet paper runs were bad enough as they were. — Derukugi

If had created a panic, the media would bash hin for that. Orangemanband if you do, orangemanbad if you don´t. — Derukugi

Woodward book: Trump says he knew coronavirus was ‘deadly’ and worse than the flu while intentionally misleading Americans — Michael

They are blaming Trump for encouraging voter fraud when in fact he’s encouraging us to make sure our vote is counted. — NOS4A2

It’s hilarious too because they are now admitting the potential for fraud after months of claiming there was none. — NOS4A2

Honestly I don't understand the concern over what Trump might say, or with anticipating or pre-empting the right's disingenuous arguments. They're going to call Dems/the left radical anti-cop socialists irrespective of what the facts are, so why worry about it? — Enai De A Lukal

Trump offered federal support, only to be denied. Days after Wheeler rebuked the president’s offer a protester is killed. Once they asked for federal support in Wisconsin, and received it, the riots subsided. Imagine that. — NOS4A2

These are democrat-run cities now burned to the ground and I think the voters are now realizing this. — NOS4A2

My point was that in an inertial frame, light can reach location A from B given enough time, and thus such a model is not a model of our universe. — noAxioms

If there is a boundary to an inertial frame, then event outside that boundary do not exist in that frame. — noAxioms

There are indeed ways to do it with a single black hole, but you must assume the black hole is at some kind of privileged location. So consider 3 events: A clock is dropped into a black hole. Event A is that clock 1 second (measured on that clock) after passing the event horizon. The black hole is big enough that it survives at least one second. The rock is dropped from a hovering location outside, which shines light down on the dropped clock. At some point the last light is emitted from this location that will catch up to the dropped clock before it hits the singularity. Event B is that hovering location 1 second after that last light goes out.
Event C is at the location of the former black hole after it has evaporated.
Yes, you can come up with various schemes to order these three events, but do any of those schemes order all of spacetime? OK, C occurs after B since it is in the future light cone of B. That's easy. Not so easy with event A.

I'm not suggesting retrocausality anywhere. Event A is not causally connected with either B or C, so no objective ordering scheme is going to produce a contradiction unless B is in A's future but C is in A's past. — noAxioms

For example, the current inertial frame of Earth won't do: There are objects beyond our event horizon (events from which light can never reach us even in infinite time). If such objects existed in our inertial frame, light from them would reach us in finite time, so these objects don't exist in that frame, and thus the frame doesn't foliate all of spacetime. — noAxioms

That coordinate system works great for large distances, but completely fails where there is large curvature of spacetime: black holes. Any such non-local foliation does not cover the events within the black hole, and thus do not constitute a foliation of all spacetime. — noAxioms

This leads to the interpretation that any restful body is not actually at rest but is moving through time at the speed of light. So in that sense everything moves through spacetime at velocity c, but photons can only move through space, hence no time passes for a photon. — Kenosha Kid

It is valid within quantum field theory models, yes. — Kenosha Kid

Plus, as I said, individual Feynman diagrams don't necessarily have physical meaning. These are really mathematical tools, not analogies to reality. When you work in QFT, it is helpful to think of these as physical processes, but that isn't guaranteed. Destroying a particle and creating an almost identical one is equivalent to the particle changing state. There are quite a few ontological degrees of freedom in quantum theory. That's where philosophers should come in :) — Kenosha Kid

Ok, I wasn't right, but still 24% is absolutely massive and I simply cannot understand how rational people can sustain such a crazy idea. I wouldn't be shocked if a guy on heroine said that, but stating that we are bot conscious is not only crazy, but also anti-scientific. To do science, you need to be consciouss! How could one trust science so nuch if they doubt their own existence? For me, this is just absurd! — Eugen

As a Feynman diagram, it looks like eL+heL+h becomes eR+heR+h, so it's valid to say that the electron in this term is destroyed and a new one with opposite isospin is created. — Kenosha Kid

Likewise, all the other "fundamental" particles with mass, except IIRC the neutrinos, which don't couple with the Higgs field and so whose tiny mass is still unexplained (because in the Standard Model, all particles should by default be massless, unless interaction with some field is slowing them down and converting some of their kinetic energy to rest-mass, which was my main point). — Pfhorrest

Fundamentally all particles travel at the speed of light always: apparent slowness is just a particle being rapidly absorbed and re-emitted (by the Higgs field if nothing else), and that slowing-down also manifests as rest mass. — Pfhorrest

It's unclear why the stages are parallel to me. Aren't they stages of me? — Luke

Also, does this imply that each individual stage is on eternal repeat, replaying over and over again?

Is there an account of why we experience time sequentially instead?

Does this imply that there's a stage of you, e.g. tomorrow, that is having its experience now (from our perspective here today)? Or do we need to wait until tomorrow for that stage of you to 'light up', i.e. to have its experience? — Luke