Raider5678

Okay. And what about the memo? You know. The thing the link was about. The DOJ, the FBI, and the Democrats are saying the Memo is misleading and inaccurate. The Republicans are saying that the Memo proves that they illegally started the investigation and bias against the Republican Party. I'm fairly certain I know which side you believe. But I'll give you the option to state your opinion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-claims-fbi-doj-favors-democrats-expected-approve-release-russia-n843981 Adding this to the discussion.

Agreed.

And, it also says territories. Not the entire United States of America should be exempt. And the minimum wage as of now is handled on a state level to an extent. The State can set the minimum wage, it just can't be lower than the federal level. Absurd. "Absolute numbers" do not matter absolutely. You can't look at a nation with 12 million people in it, compare it to a nation with 330,000,000 people in it, and then go insane when the large nation has more crime in "absolute numbers" When comparing nations of vastly different economic sizes, populations, land, etc, you cannot reasonably believe you can look at absolute numbers alone and expect to get a clear picture. What you ARE going to get is a picture that is skewered because of the massive differences between countries. "to get things those in power want." Like what exactly? Clearly, you haven't actually thought about what I've said.

No, there's not really a difference. But there is a difference between multiple people on the right and most of the people on the right. Trust me, the United States is not like a military dictatorship. REGARDLESS of what people tell you, even some people on this forum, this is not a dictatorship. The Freemasons? Really? And they're to blame for America? And the Revolutionary war contributed to the situation in America? Do you realize America is the oldest democracy on earth still existing? If you prefer to live under a monarch then a democracy, then, by all means, criticize the purpose of the revolutionary war. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it kick-started a global shift. Gun Crime in the US resulted in the Declaration of Independence. Got it. I'm tired of this whole point about how much the U.S. spends on it's military, how it spends more than everyone else, blah blah blah. It's true. Only if you look at absolute numbers. The United States is 4th in the world in terms of military spending by percentage of GDP. We spend 1.7% more than the United Kingdom and France. But considering we're also in a military alliance with many countries, we do supply a massive amount of military support. Now, I understand a lot of it gets wasted but still. Look at percentage points rather than absolute numbers and you'll get a more accurate representation. Also, in reference to crime, we're still one of the safest countries in the world. We just are never compared to anyone outside the "developed" world. Because you know. People in developing nations don't matter if they're being abused and murdered or anything. Why do we have to compare the U.S. to only developed countries, point to the U.S. and tell them they need to get themselves together, when there are countries literally everywhere else that could really use some help when it comes to crime. I'm not saying it's okay to have a high crime rate, but you still have to realize we're a lot safer than a lot of countries. We're not dead last or something. Also, this isn't even on topic.

I understand this but he used it as reasoning to be a liberal. As far as I know, conservatives weren't interested in bring the minimum wage to zero, so why would it influence his decision to be a liberal? It'd be like a conservative saying "I'm a conservative because I imagine a ridiculous minimum wage: $30 an hour. I know it's ridiculous, but businesses wouldn't be able to pay it and there'd be no economy. So I'm a conservative." It's not a valid point in my opinion. The points iNow posted were all pretty much logical, didn't make many assumptions, and weren't hypothetical.

That's a bit extreme don't you think?

Alright. Even then though, typically a flat head screwdriver or a Phillips head screwdriver works better on screws that can use both. I've yet to come across one that works equally well enough that I don't care which screwdriver I'm using to work on it.

Then I'll switch out flathead screw with a wrench to prevent confusion.

Apparently, I'm a liberal like MigL However, for these same reasons you're a liberal, I'm neither. Neither liberal nor conservative has all the solutions to the problems you've addressed. I've started telling others my opinion is this: Liberal policies are a Phillips screwdriver and conservative ones are a flat head one. (Let's not debate which screwdriver is better. That was not the point of the analogy) They can both fix things they're good at, but they can't fix everything. Which is the main problem with Republican/Democrats. They're both virtually entirely on one side, liberal or conservative. Ultimately, however, as MigL pointed out, it's how we believe these problems are best solved that makes the largest difference between the two ideologies. Also, quick edit, you pointed out that this is an overused anecdote. I disagree. You don't use half Phillips and half a flat head on a screw. You use one or the other. However, it depends on the screw.

Fringe effects?

Another possibility, if you feel the teaching is okay but not the question, is to take the question, rewrite it in a more efficient/understandable format, and present it to the people who could give you permission to change the test for your students. Since this is a grade 3-4 question as you said, I'm assuming your the teacher, not the student. Another possibility is you're a parent of a child who was given this question and you feel it's unsatisfactory. Which one is it, out of curiosity?

He's getting a bit senile but he's a nice man. What do you mean I don't care about the subject anymore? Ultimately I found some other online information that allowed me to work it out better and more exactly. http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/Magnets/Solenoid-Force-Calculator.phtml

Two things previous to this that I feel like the student should know is the concept of heat being energy and the state of being having a reflection of thermal energy levels in the matter. A cold object has less thermal energy, a hot object has more thermal energy. This thermal energy is expressed in the matter by its molecules moving around. However, this is just relative energy in comparison to the other states of matter. Obviously, some matter is liquid at 32 degrees and others are gas. So: Matter typically exists in 3 different states, there are exceptions but for 3rd grade, this isn't required to be known in my opinion: Solid - Lower thermal energy than liquid state Liquid - Lower thermal energy than gaseous state Gas - Higher thermal energy than liquid and solid states. As you can see from the diagram, a solid's molecules are "still*" They have less thermal energy in them making them move, so they're "still". The liquids state has more thermal energy than the solid state. This thermal energy is expressed by the molecules moving around more, making the matter a liquid. The gaseous state has the most thermal energy. This thermal energy is translated to the molecules, and they move much faster relative to each other in comparison to the liquid, making them a gas. Since the gaseous state has the most space between atoms due to its state, it can be compressed much easier than a solid or a liquid. This will help indicate to the student which answer is the correct one because the air will compress before the water** does. Because I'm assuming the purpose of this is so the student understands states of matter. *still is relative. They can move, but relative to each other they're more still then if it were in a liquid state or a gaseous state. ** Water is also a complicated molecule. It expands as a solid rather than getting smaller like most types of matter. This is because of........... reasons.

I never said to teach otherwise in schools. And I wouldn't have schools teach the bible either. They're both bad ideas. Ultimately, regardless of what you believe, Freedom of Religion is a thing. The government can pass no such law banning religious people from entering office if they are elected by the people. Just because Obama believed in creation, or in your terms, iron age superstition, does not mean he did a terrible job with public funding. Obama: You know, what I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it, it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and that I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live — that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible. That, I don’t presume to know.

Christian Republican Politician, yes.

So me. True.

My preference for president was that I'd rather Carson over Trump. To me, I was making a direct comparison. At the moment, I feel like the bar's already pretty low. I could probably pick some random man from a crowd and he'd do better.

Virtually every Christian Republican has an anti-evolution stance. His Egyptian revisionism was that the pyramids could have been grain silos, and he said then while telling some guy aliens did not build the pyramids. Very far fetched, but is it really that bad compared to trump? And are you serious? Are you telling my Trump doesn't suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect? I mean the guy thinks he's a reincarnation of freaking God, come on. In all due respects, I think he would have made a much better president then Trump.

Many Republicans saw Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio as the much more obvious choice above Donald Trump. I would have rathered Ben Carson personally. But by god he was hammered by Democrats, so he dropped out.

I can't imagine the Republicans doing so, but I can certainly imagine Democrats doing so.

But when I said that it had nothing to do with whether it was illegal or not. It was in response to you saying Republicans did an about-face on law enforcement. Trump is being investigated for Corruption of Justice? What happened to the Russia scandal?

You literally just quoted that it was Experts, officials, and members of Congress. And then said it was pretty much only because of members of Congress. Just saying, that contradicts itself. They are a law enforcement institution. Got it. The fact they're even investigating Trump indicates that there is ground which is not political. Got it. If they were attacking political opponents, then there could be proof it's politicized? I'm not sure what you mean. What comes after if they were attacking political opponents?

But that doesn't contradict what I said. All I said was that you can't just point and Trump and say he's politicized everything, it was politicized long before he came along. Additionally, if it's so Right-leaning why are they even investigating Trump in the first place? Would they not simply drop it and say he's an angel? As per Republican tradition? Also, out of interest, what exactly has Trump done? In your own words.

But in the past, they went up 30%, and in today's time, the average was only 1.9%. My question now is do gig jobs have the ability to suppress the average that much?