swansont

When they say the records are missing, that says to me they don't have the receipt. What does "records are missing" say to you? So now it's a lie? Establish that it was a lie. Why wasn't this part of the discussion before? I gave you the best answer I could, given the facts that were there. I gave two reasons why someone might not correct a statement in a discussion. I never said she was lying. You did. Remember what I said about good faith discussion? This ain't it. Except you don't seem to be posting about other politicians who are bold and arrogant. Can you point me toward where you complained about Trump being bold and arrogant? He certainly fits the bill. Given that you characterized AOC's statement as a lie, it would be impossible to find a Trump statement that nobody called a lie. I had clarified that the MSM did not do this, and that includes many pundits, for a long time. Lately, under the sheer weight of them, they have started to do this. There are plenty of headlines where it's "Trump mistakenly" says X (such as his comment about F-52 fighters, which are fictional) but is not characterized as a lie. Some of it's hyperbole. Some of it's just ignorance. A certain amount I can excuse. It's politics, after all. But I do hold a president to a higher standard than a representative, but that doesn't matter much, since Trump far exceeds either threshold. I wouldn't tolerate such ignorance and deceit from any member of congress. And one further test si how often they repeat faulty information. Do they correct themselves? To have that as a goal, yes. As I stated above, it's the degree and the nature of the transgressions that matter, and whether the politician makes attempts to correct the mistakes. You said before that AOC admitted her error. Is that a behavior we see with Trump? So discuss some positions.

Of Trump making up a number? The count of the hamberders he got for the Clemson visit. First it was 300. Later it was over 1000. There is no documentation that this is actually what happened, and that those numbers are correct. So you don't actually know that there is no money missing, because you lack documentation. If you had documentation that the car expenditure was $50 (a receipt) and the initial estimate (e.g. the purchase request) then it wouldn't be an undocumented change. I don't know. That seems to be unrelated to your claim about math vs "big picture" In a conversation with a photographer (i.e. not a reporter)? That she may have considered to be off the record? The underlying point of my comments is that she is being held to a different standard. Attacking the style rather than the substance (I mean, has anyone brought up any policy in this thread?), but then, that's old hat. All of the 2016 election seemed to be about style, rather than substance. Even though policy was brought up, the focus was elsewhere. It's almost as if people need to manufacture a reason not to like her.

This has been the mantra for several generations now. So despite earlier objections that careful accounting exists with other programs when people ask "how are you going to pay for this?" you are pointing out that there were a slew of GOP programs where apparently nobody cared how they were going to pay for it. AOC has proposed increasing the marginal rate to 70% for incomes over $10M. We could also reverse recent tax cuts for the rich, and close loopholes. There is no evidence that the deficit will increase as the result of healthcare proposals (It didn't under the ACA), and it's premature to insist that they will, as there is no concrete proposal out there. You may choose that tactic, but you can't force others to. Or maybe she agrees that there might be a legitimate legal question to ponder. Or maybe she was just trying to exit the conversation. (Is holding back from responding because you don't want to pursue the topic an unfamiliar tactic to you?) There are probably other options, as well. And honest, good faith debate is important, too. Moving the goalposts/making straw men is not an example of that, though. I never said that math was unimportant, nor did I suggest that I was going to try and convince you otherwise (I said the opposite). No, I would rather hold you to that declaration. "In other words, $21 trillion is the total value of adjustments made to the Pentagon’s financial records over those years that could not be traced." I can't reconcile this statement with your claim. That would be most of them, actually, since the media has a pretty strong aversion to using that word. But there are plenty of times where Trump has obviously just made up a number, since there is no reference for it, and times where the number has changed over time. I apologize for my sarcasm causing confusion for you.

No, there's nothing to indicate that mass causes time. Differences in mass can lead to differences in gravitational potential which affects time dilation. And that goes away with the absence of mass, but that's a deviation in time, not time itself. Further, special relativity tells us that there is a four-velocity in spacetime, and time passes at its fastest when the spatial components are zero. The presence of mass modifies this, but it starts at its maximum, not at zero.

So, two examples is "often" and, by inference, more than other politicians (because why call it out if it's not?) Were there 14 other mis-statements that day? (where that's equal to one Trump) The Constitution doesn't prevent her from running for president. It prevents her from being elected. Victoria Woodhull ran for president (the first woman to do so) before turning 35. So why is it that the GOP is silent when it comes to funding an expansion of the military, or going to war? Why didn't this come up with the tax cut? You can't be sure of that, though. There is no paperwork to show it. You know this is what happened? Citation? Actually, I think people ignore the president when he makes stupid mistakes like this. They don't when he blatantly lies, which he does a lot. Mistakes at a much higher rate than AOC False equivalence, given Trump's propensity to lie. I just pointed out a few where they don't exist. So, no. You're just making up numbers, though, so this is not an apt comparison. There's a proposal to lock new computers from being able to access porn, and charge $20 to unlock them, and that would go toward the wall. Technical issues aside, this isn't going to pay for the wall. Even if you sold 100 million computers and all wanted to be unlocked, that's $2 billion. But if you quoted that proposal, you would not be the one to blame for the math error, or the assumptions that went into it. But you could bring that up as a broader point of finding ways to fund the wall. Even though it's new taxes, so the GOP would be conflicted about it all. That's your prerogative. If math is more important than concepts for you, then that's that. Other than saying "Her mistake was the implication that this represented a pile of money (wasted or missing)" yeah, I completely missed the obvious that her mistake was that this represented money in some budget. Although we’ve been joking that because the Equal Rights Amendment hasn’t been passed yet, the Constitution technically says he cannot run unless he’s 35. … So what we’ll do is we’ll force the Republican Party to pass the Equal Rights Amendment by threatening to run for president.” Funny how that characterization has been missing from the discussion. She states at the outset that she's not serious, and that the later comment about the constitutional literalists — the question that they might be forced to interpret the Constitutional restrictions as applying to men. And she's talking to a photographer, not a reporter. What I'd like to see is the reaction of this sort to anyone who has ever equated the cost of a weapons program and point out how else that money could be used. Do they get lambasted like this? Anyone got links for responses to "An F-35 costs $X. We could do Y with that" where the person is chastised for not knowing that the pentagon's money can't actually be used that way?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, but it's not from relativity Why would vet be meaningful value? An object only has that speed at t=0 (or some infinitesimal afterwards) gamma does not tell you the acceleration

No, she was equating a dollar amount. Basically that $21 trillion was missing, and you could fund ~2/3 of medicare for all with that amount of money. 21/32 is, in fact, 65.6% First of all, it was a tweet, meaning that the amount of nuanced argument in it is close to nil. Any kind of complex explanation, if distilled into a tweet, is going to be missing some context. Second of all, she did not make up the number. It was from an article. If the number was wrong, blame the researcher. Her mistake was the implication that this represented a pile of money (wasted or missing). But the broader context was that these kinds of accounting anomalies exist with the pentagon budget, and not with other programs, where people ask "How are you going to pay for it?"

Right, she isn't eligible, but some of her policies may end up being campaign issues, so I want to know what doesn't make sense, since it allegedly happens often.

That's not the same as "what's she's saying often doesn't add up"

Like what?

! Moderator Note I have snipped the last post owing to copyright violation concerns. You can't just copy a web site and post it here. The details are at the linked site

Why would it heat up? And what evidence is there that this happens?

! Moderator Note A speculative hypothesis based on another speculative (and demonstrably wrong) hypothesis? That's not going to work. (IOW, if your model depends on a flat earth, it has already disproven itself. There is no need to entertain discussion of it.) You need to start with the fundamental speculation first, and establish it. All has to be connected to accepted science.

Heavier elements as the projectile probably can't be accelerated to the necessary speed, and require a higher energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. E = kq1q2/r q is proportional to the atomic number, Z Let's say you want to get to Z=120, and no protons are lost from the collision (or want a smaller Z but protons are lost) If you use Z = 20 and 100, the product is 2000. If you use 60 and 60, the product is 3600. IOW, you need 80% more energy to overcome the barrier.

! Moderator Note madmac, it was suggested you not continue and instead open up a new thread. You did not take the hint, so I have done this