J.C.MacSwell

10 hours ago, iNow said:

There's significant construction work being done in our neighborhood. Lots of excavators and roads being dug up, new water drain lines buried, etc.

Got to speaking with a member of their crew yesterday. Tall muscular guy, mid-40s. Said he's a former Marine. Spent some time in a motorcycle gang. Did tattoo work, even corporate security before moving into large city funded construction projects.

Within a few minutes, he'd shared that racism isn't real and is just a media invented narrative, that Hitler didn't hate "the Jews" and was mostly just mad bc they tried taking his gold away from him, that Hitler even had black Nazis controlling things in Africa so "stop believing all the lies," he shared that "the largest slave owners were actually the native americans," and he even started scrolling through photos and social media posts on his phone to show me and prove all of this was real and relevant as he next moved into commenting that "Nixon moving away from the gold standard is what set all of our problems into motion."

It's not simple vaccinating against this. I could've knocked down each of those claims one by one, but he'd just Gish Gallop into 20 more that support his preconceptions. Critical thinking diseases in meme'd minds is an extremely real problem. 

I've always encouraged everyone to vote regardless of who I thought they might vote for...but now I find myself hoping you told this guy "right on man, don't forget to get out next Wednesday on Nov 6th and vote...I hear they're tearing up the early ballots!"

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Considering that they were able to explain away a coup attempt (which was universally condemned when everyone was afraid for their lives), I don't think that this bar is any higher, to be honest.

Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think we can rely on certain standards anymore.

No doubt, but in this case it's both recent and very easy to connect the dots.

Hinchcliffe is claiming it's just jokes, but he was warming up a crowd for Trump. I've not heard of anything to indicate Trump took exception to it, when he spoke at the rally afterwards or since

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would say he was a symptom of prevalent racism, and folks being afraid that the Overton window has shifted so far that being PC now applied to subtle and systemic racism as well (which we can see in the rejection of CRT), which is a bridge too far.

 

I'm sure that is also true.

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Those were already present in 2016 with his rapists comments. It wasn't subtle then, either. It just has become more blunt, but why should it make a difference once we are so far down the hole?

As obvious as it might be to you, more blunt will surely make it harder for his GOP cohorts to liesplain away the more outrageous statements, such as Tony Hinchcliffe's "jokes".

To their credit, some in the GOP condemn his remarks...too bad it needs to be taken to that level before they respond.

On topic...with much of the GOP going around claiming Trump doesn't really mean what he says...surely Trump himself will need to explain some of the stuff said on his behalf at yesterdays rally:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/28/fact-check-donald-trumps-madison-square-garden-rally-in-new-york-city

(the outright racial insults...not the more of the same run-of-the-mill lies)

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If males with misogynistic and racist tendencies don't vote, how did we get Trump in 2016?  

At the time he was more a symptom stemming from the radical left, which allowed at least some of his blowhard proclamations to seem reasonable by comparison...

He had always been an a-hole, but hadn't outed himself as a dangerous insurrectionist.

On 10/25/2024 at 5:48 PM, swansont said:

New NYT/Siena poll has the race tied, but there’s this (posted on bluesky)

Not only ignoring recent history but also the post-Dobbs voter registration surge

One might expect that 18-29 women demographic to be even higher this time around, given women's reproductive rights being a significant issue.

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which is what was claimed when Obama was president, and the predicted disaster never happened.

If they print enough money we'll see an inflationary effect...maybe they just didn't over do it?

Just to add to INow's answer, it's not just about the amount of money, printed and otherwise effectively out there, but how fast it circulates...along with a number of other factors that affect "the market".

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

I am talking at different forums, in particular a US political forum where the Trumpists are dominating (thepoliticsforums.com). It is funny that when I told them that Trump and Harris are two sides of the same coin – they reacted almost like you, maybe even in similar words.

 

Shocked to hear that...given that exactly none of them would be likely to claim a similarity...the Trump kool-aid doesn't include those ingredients...it's more towards accepting a pussy grabbing messiah here to deliver us from the evils of democracy...

A more recent and actual example in the border dispute region between India and China:

To paraphrase Winston Churchill it is better to "stick stone" than to war war or nuke nuke...

They got back to jaw jaw much quicker that way.

Water balloon fights in the summer. Snowball fights in the winter.

No escalations to sticks and stones...

19 hours ago, KJW said:

Didn't Trump build a wall, or at least part of a wall? He said he was going to build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it.

 

Trump built at least some of it and put a healthy markup on it, did he not? It's not his fault the current administration forgot to send Mexico the bill. Even if it had been included in the border bill he kiboshed he can hardly be blamed. Wasn't on his watch.

Everything was wonderful and best ever with him as POTUS.

If Trump says tariffs are good for the country who are these "economists" to question that?

51 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What's really needed is for him to keep stating clearly that he will be a dictator on Jan. 20, 2025.  As in his most recent statement that he will use the military to round up his enemies.  Keep that up and his erosion among Independents and suburban moderates will continue.

 

 

It doesn't seem to be showing in the polls though, at least not overall nor in critical States. Or am I missing something?

It seemed to be heading in the right direction for a while but seems otherwise lately.

How much worse does Trump need to act for it to be reflected negatively for him in the polls?

I'm not sure we are any more "moral" than many of the ancients that developed our religions. We just have more information to point at where they erred in some of their assumptions in the narratives they used to get their ideas across.

I suspect most had a moral compass prior to the establishment of any current religion...and I suspect most bent it a bit when it suited them...

On 10/4/2024 at 2:29 PM, iNow said:

Until the very next morning, of course. Reality check from Axios:

It was a strategic play to appeal to moderates during the debate and throw Walz off his game (as he prepared for attack dog Vance, not midwest nice Vance). But it was another lie, in essence, like much of what he said during the debate itself (like that comment about a Fed study saying housing prices were higher due to illegal immigrants or that Trump defended Obamacare, for example). 

Yep, those illegal immigrants are driving house prices up so much they can only pay the mortgage by eating your pets....

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

But, regardless, I don't see any redeeming value in allowing such individuals to exist in society even if they haven't actually committed a crime, and I feel like the merciful thing to do would be to simply disallow them to exist as they currently do. If I had the authority, I would be tempted to simply have them executed, or at least have all of their human rights removed and them reduced to the status of second-class citizens, possibly allowing for them to perform forced labor. This would all be done legally and on the books, no one would be committing any vigilante violence against incels, white supremacists, and the like. They would simply de-classified as human altogether, and legally it wouldn't be any different than putting rabid animals to sleep.

 

Wouldn't this make you some kind of "Incel +" that should be executed?  (Right after me perhaps for suggesting this)

Most agree with free enterprise...at least when they are buying...

Most agree capitalism is a two edged sword that needs government constraints against abuse...

But most also conflate the two...

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

As I said earlier, it's a perception by the customer, not an objectively quantifiable thing. You can charge what the market will bear in the short term, but if you value customer loyalty that has to be tempered by an awareness of what your customers are likely to think is a reasonable price.  

During my career in the downstream oil industry (lubricants), I used to distinguish between the mentality of traders and that of marketers. A trader behaves exactly as you describe. Each transaction is profit-earning in its own right and there is little or no loyalty expected or shown between a trader and his counterparty, save that of basic honesty - nobody wants to trade with a crook. (Traders used to be advised to be guided by the old adage "my word is my bond".) But in marketing you are trying to build a brand, to which your customers will feel some loyalty, returning time after time for repeat purchases. For that they must be happy with the product and any associated services, and part of that is the price, of course, as well as the performance of the product and the general market behaviour and reputation of the company.  Brands take decades to build, but can be trashed overnight by clumsy behaviour or a product failure. So they have to be nurtured with extreme care. There are thus a lot more factors to consider in marketing than in trading, even in a theoretical unregulated, free market environment.  

Good points. Traders can of course gouge when they own the product but not the brand. You might hold it against them but not the brand if you can in the fiuture get it elsewhere.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

A lot of US laws quantify it. Often a 10%-15% rise in price compared to the past 30 days, above any rise in costs.

 

Seems odd that it could be that low for a typically marked up good, especially if compared to ones significantly higher marked up already.

@CharonY

No drop in potency =/= allowable drop. You can claim an allowable drop of 5 or 10% is insignificant, except as you state...when it is, but you can't claim an allowable drop is not a drop. 

Not allowing any drop during shelf life would make many drugs unaffordable. If you can't understand that that would be detrimental to health care I can't help you.

There is a reason with some drugs that the potency requirements are stricter at manufacture or release than at later times during their shelf life. Some degradation is expected, so time left to expiration date is a factor.

This is a simple concept but feel free to continue to gaslight the Hell out of it.

It's well known the 19th hole is the clubhouse...when Trump's on the course, I think we know what the twentieth is...

Just as an aside, any general guideline that would require "no drop in potency" through the expiration date would, especially with regard to certain drugs, be of significant detriment to health care.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

I have pointed out that they cannot just decide on a date, rather have to do stability testing to ensure that during the indicated time period no loss of potency is observed. You keep insinuating that this is somehow incorrect, yet fail to point out what that is beyond providing quotes that do not appear to provide any additional context.

 

Again. That is not a blanket requirement in any link you provided, or quoted.  Read and try to understand the wording.

If you can't get passed that what's the point of my going through your other requests based on what you think I might be insinuating?

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is this factually correct?

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim you can't provide a link that peak quality is required to be maintained to that point in time.

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Of course I can...

Me backpedalling? I was simply trying to help you out, as you were more factually incorrect than wrong. If you had taken the chance to add context you could have simply been more accurate, but instead doubled down with a narrative that you felt justified your position.

Next time read what I posted and do less assuming.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not really. The indicated changes are considered not statistically significant and generally also applied to batch production. I.e. the product is still virtually indistinguishable from fresh products. In case you are not familiar with the concept, in most of biology and medicine significance is established at the 5% level. There might be exceptions for certain types of drugs, where threshold can be lower, but I believe that these are outside of the general guidelines. The main quality concession there is related to accelerated (i.e. high temperature) experiments, as long as potency is not affected. 

Or are you referring to something else, in which case please clarify as I am curious to see why you'd think that I am not reading (or understanding) what I post.

Not necessarily. It depends on the nature and test protocol for the particular drug.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7040264/

"Medication's potency gradually decreases starting from the moment of its manufacture."

While I'm not sure this is true in all cases it is certainly true generally.

(For balance and/or more context) It continues:

"This process is not in any way spontaneous after the expiry date.

Expired drugs have not necessarily lost their potency and efficacy. The expiration date is only an assurance that the labeled potency will last at least until that date. Ongoing research shows that stored under optimal conditions, many drugs retain 90% of their potency for at least five years after the labeled expiration date, and sometimes longer. Even 10 years after the expiration date many pharmaceuticals retain a significant amount of their original potency.²

Solid dosage forms, such as tablets and capsules, are most stable past their expiration date. Drugs that exist in solution or as a reconstituted suspension may not have the required potency if used when outdated."