Raider5678

What do you mean? I was talking in the sense she lost votes for the democratic party.

Explain.

Looking at the chart I posted, would you agree it might indicate a growing sentiment like yours, against political parties? There were only 732,000 write in votes during the 2016 election, so 4 million of those extra votes were for 3rd party candidates.

No. It's not a fallacy, it's a fact. She got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. In my opinion, the fact that independents got 5.5 million more votes than before, is quite hopeful that we might be getting tired of parties. Until you realize that probably had a lot to do with Bernie Sanders. Unless I'm mistaken.

Many people thought that was what they were doing by voting for Trump.

However, you also have to note this is how Trump managed to convince some people to not vote for Hillary. Hillary had less votes than Obama, so she lost votes. I think that's partially because Trump convinced some people she was corrupt simply because she had been in Washington already.

My teachers said Reagan was a horrible president was he not?

I doubt it too. As we've discussed, the majority of America will look at her fame and initial views(I.E. someone who never lies because she wrote an article about how lying for profit is horribly wrong) to form an opinion. It'd take more then "She supported Dr. Oz!" to take away her credibility and potential candidacy.

Part of the business of entertainment. Dr.Oz prey's on the idea of convincing women they're fat and that they need to lose weight. And while I find that despicable, it happens all the time with the ad's on news sites that I see like "Lose 45 pounds in 20 days!" Ohpra is in the business of entertainment, and the weight loss advertisements might as well be a virtual goldmine of money. Why wouldn't she do so? It's a good(not moral, but profitable) business practice to take advantage of psychological conditions to sell stuff. Or in this case, get views.

Amazing.

Can you give an example of a wacky medical claim? So we can have a basis of how wacky?

Yes. My bad.

I said nothing about the cultural imperative nor what MisterMack is perpetuating. I proved that John Cuthber clearly said it. That's all there is to it, I'm not debating the ethics of it.

Actually, this line that I've underlined is proof that it DID in fact happen. Simply because MisterMack is arguing a different position does not indicate that he's trying to let rapists off the hook. Yet, here it is, clearly implied that he is, by John Cuthber. Again, MisterMack has also repeatedly said the fault does not lie with the victim. Yet, it's also clearly implied here that MisterMack is somehow blaming the victim. You just said: Yet, it's literally right there.

A lot of people were saying stuff like that, however, Strange hasn't. And for the same reason, it's not fair to loop you in as a misogynist simply because of the position you take, it's not fair to loop strange in with them simply because of the position he took.

From someone who HAS read every page, it was occurring quite a bit. However, in this instance you haven't brought it up, so MisterMack should probably drop that point. Now if he was arguing with one of the others, then it'd make sense.

Rocket travel, yes. The act of designing rockets, making them safe, etc? I just kinda doubt it.

Well, yeah. It's rocket science after all. I'm one of those people who doesn't think rocket science will ever become routine.

Ah, okay. All makes sense now. Delta V, as I thought, is the change of velocity. However, delta V is related to ISP, which in turn is related to exhaust velocity, which in turn is directly related to how much energy per kg is released per kg.

So different rocket fuels only affect exhaust velocity, which then, in turn, affects the ISP of the rocket?

To be fair, it was probably half my fault anyway. I should have held my tongue, like you, and let it go.

Huh. But now I'm confused. The mass to fuel ratio and the exhaust velocity is the only thing that matters for the speed of a rocket? What about deltaV? Where does that come in play? If a rocket with 10,000m/s deltaV is next to a rocket with 12,000m/s deltaV, wouldn't the first rockets top speed, starting at 0m/s be 10,000m/s and the second rocket's 12,000m/s? Regardless of mass to fuel ratio?

Wait, doesn't fuel efficiency play a role in it?

But wouldn't the occupants note that 400 days had passed, thereby allowing them to realize they're moving slower through time or..... I'm so confused.

Actually, Aerobraking is another way instead of using powered means. It basically means you use the atmosphere of the planet to slow you down, potentially putting you in orbit around the planet. Then you just wait until you reach the apogee and then increase your velocity a little bit and you'll gain height at the periapsis, preventing you from slowing down further.