[barmar]

I find one of Trump's sillier talking points is that he "took a bullet for you", referring to the assassination attempt.

"Taking a bullet" means deliberately putting yourself in danger to protect someone else. It's what Secret Service agents do when they interpose themselves between a shooter and the President. It's what the DC Police officers did when they were trying to protect the Capitol from the Jan 6 rioters. Soldiers do it to protect their brothers in arms.

Trump didn't do anything heroic when he was the target of an assassination, unless you think just appearing in public is inherently risky. And since then, they've been putting him behind bulletproof glass in many of his rallies, so he's not really willing to risk his life.

And if God was really protecting him, why was there a shooter in the first place? I love the twisted logic of religious people when they justify things like this.

[i m kookie]

kenberg, on 2024-November-04, 09:28, said:

I think that there are some Martians that landed in Arizona. And there are these witches in Massachusetts.

Not to mention the ones who landed in Minnesota and put tampon dispensers in boys' toilets. Lunacy abounds.

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure about what this says, a poll suggests 16% of brits would vote for Trump in this election if they had a vote. It was 10% when he was against Hillary

[shyams]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-05, 03:46, said:

Not sure about what this says, a poll suggests 16% of brits would vote for Trump in this election if they had a vote. It was 10% when he was against Hillary

Reform UK, Nigel Farage's party, received 1 in 7 votes cast in the recent UK general elections.

Farage projects himself to be a quasi-Trump, he even spoke at Trump rallies in past US elections. I wouldn't be surprised if most of his voters also feature in the "I'd vote for Trump if I could" group.

[hrothgar]

i m kookie, on 2024-November-04, 19:01, said:

Not to mention the ones who landed in Minnesota and put tampon dispensers in boys' toilets. Lunacy abounds.

Does anyone actually understand the weird objection to have tampon's in the men's room?

I understand that there's a bunch of ignorant bigots who get their panties in a twist over these sorts of issues, however, if you're talking to normal folks and not idiots, what's the issue?

I can think of plenty of times when a trip to the grocery store has involved my needing to buy tampons for a female friend.

Back when I was in junior high school or high school, a request from one of my friends to grab her a tampon would have probably been a bit awkward, but I think that society has a whole (and particular the younger portions of out society) have evolved significantly.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2024-November-05, 07:35, said:

Does anyone actually understand the weird objection to have tampon's in the men's room?

I understand that there's a bunch of ignorant bigots who get their panties in a twist over these sorts of issues, however, if you're talking to normal folks and not idiots, what's the issue?

I can think of plenty of times when a trip to the grocery store has involved my needing to buy tampons for a female friend.

Back when I was in junior high school or high school, a request from one of my friends to grab her a tampon would have probably been a bit awkward, but I think that society has a whole (and particular the younger portions of out society) have evolved significantly.

I finished high school in 1956. I am pretty sure that if a female classmate had asked me to go into a store and buy a tampon for her I would have said "What's a tampon?". And of course she would not have asked back then. You are right, the world has changed. I am not at all sure that the girl's restrooms dispensed tampons back then.

I just checked with Becky about high school bathrooms when she was young. No tampons, no pads, you had to be prepared. So she recalls. Perhaps the nurse could help in an emergency. The world has definitiely changed. And some changes are actualy improvements.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2024-November-05, 07:35, said:

Does anyone actually understand the weird objection to have tampon's in the men's room?

I understand that there's a bunch of ignorant bigots who get their panties in a twist over these sorts of issues, however, if you're talking to normal folks and not idiots, what's the issue?

I can think of plenty of times when a trip to the grocery store has involved my needing to buy tampons for a female friend.

Back when I was in junior high school or high school, a request from one of my friends to grab her a tampon would have probably been a bit awkward, but I think that society has a whole (and particular the younger portions of out society) have evolved significantly.

As with virtually everything on the new conservative scale, the bottom line is their religion-based morality and the taboos associated with it.

[johnu]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-05, 03:46, said:

Not sure about what this says, a poll suggests 16% of brits would vote for Trump in this election if they had a vote. It was 10% when he was against Hillary

There was probably some doubt among low information voters whether Convicted Felon Trump was a rabid racist, white supremacist, and fascist when he ran in 2016. That question has been fully resolved for even the low information voters.

[thepossum]

Yesterday you could win 91 dollars on a horse race

Apparently going back to how all this started Nate plumped for 50:50

[thepossum]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-05, 03:46, said:

Not sure about what this says, a poll suggests 16% of brits would vote for Trump in this election if they had a vote. It was 10% when he was against Hillary

I am not sure what that says about the main parties

[hrothgar]

Jesus ***** christ. What is wrong with this country?

I am so hoping that this is a red mirage, but tonight is feeling way too much like 2016. And if Trump wins, this is going to e so much worse than 2016.

What hurts most is that I was feeling good about things up until 8:00 or so...

[akwoo]

I've been beating this drum since 2016 if not earlier, so let me do it again.

One of the many ways that economists (in this case I am looking at statistics from the Federal Reserve) study the labor market is by dividing jobs into cognitive or non-cognitive (whether you work with your head or your hands) and routine or non-routine (whether you do a few tasks you have presumably been trained in over and over or whether you keep having to figure out how to do your job).

For the last forty years, even as the working-age population has grown, almost all the growth in the labor market has been in cognitive, non-routine jobs, and most of the rest has been in non-cognitive, non-routine jobs. The only segment that has seen significant wage growth (presumably because it is the only segment that doesn't have more available workers than jobs) is cognitive, non-routine jobs. (I'm interpreting publicly available Federal Reserve data here, if you want to poke around and look it up.)

Since this is a bridge forum, now let me tell you about a hand from tonight at the club. I'm declarer sitting North. You are on lead - 3C was a Bergen raise showing 4 card heart support and about 7-9 points:

---

The woman on lead did what the beginner's books say; she lead her partner's suit. South did not have a spade control, but I ruffed the opening diamond, pitched all but one of dummy's spades on my clubs, and made. The post-mortem went something like this:

Her: I guess I should have lead a spade.
Me and her partner: The auction did tell you that was the suit where declarer might have a problem.
Her: I guess it did, but I couldn't take that all in, so I just lead what partner's bidding told me to.

She does have something like 1500 masterpoints, earned in an area without large clubs, and while mikeh would respectfully consider her incompetent, she is about average for 1500 masterpoints and hence better than 80-85% of bridge players. I also want to point out that she has all the knowledge to make the right lead; she just can't process all that knowledge at the table.

Now, I don't really know her outside of bridge, so I have no idea what she's capable of, but if this is someone's general level of thinking and decision-making ability, are they going to be able to hold down any cognitive, non-routine job? And - judging by the usual standard of club bridge - frequently with many very experienced players - most bridge players are not any more capable, and I see no reason why most non-bridge players are more capable; if anything on average I would expect them to be less capable (since bridge players choose to play bridge).

I don't see how our society can continue to avoid revolution without creating large numbers of routine jobs.

Why does Trump get so many votes? Because all the people competing for the remaining routine jobs are tired of having no future as the jobs they can do become fewer and fewer and pay (relatively) less and less, even as the economy grows for the benefit of all the smarties.

At the same time, automation and now AI/ML makes many routine jobs, if not yet obsolete, then obsolete pending availability of sufficient capital to create the necessary automated machinery.

That's why I think we're doomed.