unicorn

That link is under a paywall. 😟

Any of you bothered by some movies being snubbed by the Motion Picture Academy this year? What's up with no nominations for Saltburn? How about Rosamund Pike for Best Actress in a Supporting Role, or Cinematography or Production Design? Or even best Actor in a Leading Role for Barry Keoghan?

Almost all of your talking points would support Democrats, not Republicans. All legislation to improve working conditions have come from democrats, who are the ones, for example, to promote family leave. Minimum wages are lowest in states run by Republicans, and higher in the states by Democrats: The only talking point you've mentioned in which Republicans might do better would be in illegal immigration, though illegal border crossings definitely went up under Trump as well, and he failed to build most of the wall which he said he was going to build. Trump supporters still believe Trump's delusion that Mexico would pay for the wall. The situation is not quite as dire as some might lead one to believe, if one looks at the overall picture (not just illegal border crossings): Many illegals simply overstay their visa. Most of them do work and support the US economy. Biden could do a better job of discouraging illegal crossings, although under no circumstances could I support Trump's policy of separating young children from their parents. Who would do that? That being said, I do believe that if the Republicans in the House have a good plan to address illegal border crossings (I haven't heard of any yet), then Biden would be wise to listen, and at least compromise. Free health care exists only in a few oil-rich countries. The question is how to pay for it (insurance premiums or taxes, in which case which taxes?).

I'm not sure why you feel the need to chime in on subjects in which you're completely ignorant. Almost all of your statements are the opposite of the truth. First of all, Americans are essentially all covered by unemployment insurance. It usually pays for about a year, sometimes longer. Secondly, while it used to be the case that losing a job could cause you to lose your health insurance and lead a person to poverty, this changed during the time both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, who passed the Affordable Care Act, which was signed by Obama (and opposed by Republicans). Due to the ACA, those with low income get cost-free health insurance. Those with somewhat low to moderate incomes get their health insurance coverage subsidized by the government. Health insurance companies can no longer deny coverage or raise rates due to pre-existing conditions, as was the case when Republicans were in control. It's now illegal in the US not to have health insurance. At income tax time, any person who's refused to buy health insurance will simply be fined an equal amount to what he would have paid for basic health care coverage (what's called here bronze coverage). A form from the insurance company must be filed with one's income tax. Absolutely opposite to what you suggest, Trump and the Republican platform have actually called for the repeal of the ACA. Also, Trump promised to stop the war in Afghanistan but failed to do so. It was Biden who got the US out (admittedly, rather awkwardly). Again, the opposite of what you suggest. Your statement regarding "crime rate thru the roof" (sic) is also the opposite of the truth. Crime rates overall have been falling, certainly not rising, much less "thru the roof" as you claimed: As Abraham Lincoln is quoted:

I'm glad to hear that. I wonder who responds positively then. The vagina discussion related to another poster's response, which you can find in this string: "Why is your mom's vagina so large? My friends and I have been in there at the same time." This prompts cursing and apoplectic insults that I parry like a standup comedian with a heckler.

I personally don't mind mailings (just bad for trees). Phone calls I find very disruptive. Most mailings I just toss.

Well, at least you're grounded enough to include the word "seemingly"... 😉

Wow. I don't give them my phone number, but I do all of my donations by credit card (phone number not needed for credit card transactions). Paying whatever I can by credit card is important for me to maintain elite status with hotel chains and my airline. The only things I pay for by check are my bills from my landscaper and pool guy. Occasional Zelle for people such as the housecleaner and dog-sitter.

Yikes. More very bad news for Alaska Airlines and Southwest Airlines, most of whose fleet consists of various 737's. The US's other main airlines, American, Delta, and United, have a far more diversified fleet.

Oops. What I meant to say was that I will occasionally donate to an organization which is not assessed 4*, but is assessed as 3*, if they are doing something I strongly support, and no one else is doing...

I would avoid donating to a cause based on a phone solicitation for a number of reasons, some related to personal benefit, the other to being a "good citizen." (1) Even if someone calls you claiming to be from a charity you've known, researched (i.e. you've determined they're rated 4 stars on Charity Navigator or whatever other criterion you use), and aligns with your principles, you still can't be sure they are who they say they are. Giving someone you didn't seek out your credit card information might lead to serious hanky-panky. (2) If you donate based on telephone solicitations, your telephone number will be sold to others as "someone who sometimes will send money based on a telephone solicitation." Therefore, even if you don't give your credit card information to the caller and just tell him "That sounds great. I'll go online and send your organization some money!", you will end up being bombarded by this and other organizations due to the possibility of being successful. In fact, variable ratio (VR) reinforcement is the most powerful form of reinforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcement_schedules The addictive nature of variable reinforcement is why gambling addiction can be so powerful Finally, (3) By a similar logic, donating based on telephone solicitation encourages the behavior to continue to annoy other people, most of whom don't like cold calls at random times. So even if you personally don't mind random solicitation calls, a positive response encourages behavior which annoys the majority of people who do mind such calls. When I'm ready to donate money, my approach is to look up my usual charities on charitynavigator.org to make sure they're still rated 4*, then go to the organization's website to donate. One of my favorite charities, International Rescue Committee went down to 3* in 2021/2022, primarily due to inefficiency in use of donations. I did call them to ask them if they were aware of the drop and why it occurred. Their response was that they decided not to let go of staff during the pandemic, so I was OK with that. I've noticed that, in fact, they've gone back up to 4*. I will occasionally donate to an organization which is not assessed or ranked 3* if they are doing something I strongly support, and no one else is doing, such as the Rainbow Railroad, which helps get members of the LGBT community out of hostile countries such as Uganda and Iran. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/135660870 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474896980

Nothing wrong with allowing stupid people on board. Everyone should be entitled to his own opinion, when the matter is truly one of opinion. However, I would put my foot down if someone promotes completely factually inaccurate statements (such as "the election was stolen," which has been 100% disproven). Allowing factually inaccurate information to spread constitutes a threat to a free society. A statement such as "Trump's a great guy," while ridiculous, is a matter of opinion. A statement such as "Trump won the election in 2020" is both factually wrong and dangerous.

The suggestion that the US's visa policy is even partially based on bigotry is factually incorrect and stupid, as I suspect you're well aware (either that or you're quite ignorant). The US's visa policy is designed to minimize the chance of letting people in who will overstay their visas. Chile and Argentina have very similar demographics, but the US requires visas from Argentinians and not Chileans, as Chile's economic situation is quite a bit more stable and Chileans don't tend to overstay their visas to the US. Same language, skin color, religion, and so on: just different statistics. Same for Brunei and neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia. Same race, religion, and language. Only the immigration statistics are different (Singapore citizens also don't need a visa). South Korea and Japan don't need visas, Chinese do. Croatians don't need visas, but Romanians do. It all comes down to past history and statistics, not to "bigotry." Don't make a fool of yourself by pretending otherwise.

I'd be surprised if you weren't aware that Trump has had tons of gaffes. I just mentioned to most recent. I suspect you know better.

Eeek. It seems that this is the problem. If I want to donate to a cause or candidate, I do so on my own, online, or perhaps because of a mail solicitation. Donating in response to a phone call, in addition to be dangerous, encourages more misbehavior. I just provide warnings; I don't get around to insulting the callers' mothers' vagina...

And dementia Trump confused Nikki Haley with the Speaker of the House. I do agree that both are too old to start a term in 2025.

Sometimes I don't know how these people get my number, but businesses, charities, and political candidates who call (especially) or text uninvited definitely get a negative response from me. If a charity calls me uninvited, I tell them that the call results in a 3-month ban on donations, with further calls result in loss of my support, both now and in my will. Political candidates who do likewise will be informed that one more call or text will result in loss of any support I may have previously had for their candidate. Are there really people out there who respond positively to such solicitations? There has to be some reason that people believe that unsolicited calls will do anything other than piss off the person receiving the unsolicited calls...

I can't agree that opposition to uncontrolled borders implies treason. That being said, Trump's meeting with Putin, with the only other person present being Putin's own interpreter can have no other reasonable interpretation except treason from that low-life draft-dodger. There's no question but that Trump puts his welfare above anything else, including, most certainly, his country. I think few borders are as open as the US/Canada border...

Well, I'm atheist, so I don't pray, but you have my best wishes. If I can believe the scientific literature, this form of arthritis has a great prognosis, and you should enjoy a good recovery, perhaps back to where you were before this even started. Thanks for the update.

My fiance and I are on a tour, and one of the women on our tour put plastic tape around her ankles so that they wouldn't get abraded, since she was wearing "no-show" socks. My fiance also sometimes wears these, and then sometimes gets blisters or abrasions around his ankles because of this. For this trip, I begged him to avoid wearing those socks, since there's a lot of walking, and I don't want to deal with unnecessary ankle skin problems. I don't understand the reasoning behind these no-show socks. Do people who wear them believe their ankles are so beautiful, that others will be enthralled by viewing their ankle skin? If anything, I thought the plastic tape around the ankles made that woman look silly. I'd love to know why some people prefer these types of socks....

It's obviously not xenophobic to point out what's simply a fact. Requiring visas in advance will reduce tourism from the country for whom the advanced visa is required. How much is a matter of debate, and obviously depends on which country, and which unique assets they may have. The intelligent thing for each country to do is to assess the cost of requiring the visa versus the risk or cost involved in possibly having citizens of the country overstaying their visa and possibly using the country's resources. That is the wise way to approach a visa policy. A policy of "We'll require a visa from any country which requires a visa from our citizens" is simply childish and self-defeating. Most countries understand that. We're now in Egypt. The US requires advanced visas from Egyptian citizens since a flood of Egyptians coming in ostensibly as tourists but staying and using resources would not be great for the US. Yet Egypt issues easy visas on arrival, $25 cash, and very much welcomes tourists from the US. When developing a visa policy, each country should decide what's wisest for that country. Wisest means rational rather than emotional thinking.

Well, Venezuela has got to be the most disastrous failure of a country on the planet. Despite one of the world's largest oil reserves, horrific corruption have led that country to be in a catastrophic economic situation. Yes, there are countries which are poorer, but none with such massive natural resources. What an outrageous, almost unbelievable fiasco.