That's what I said: "(1) Her statement didn't kill her, its out-of-context use in Trump's campaign ad did."

Apparently you don't understand the distinction between personally identifiable information and anonymized statistics. For example, it is illegal to reveal that a specific individual suffered a heart attack; it's not illegal to reveal that some number of unnamed individuals suffered heart attacks over some period of time. There is publicly available information that inmates received hormone therapy during Trump's administration. There is no publicly available information that I could find indicating that inmates received sex reassignment surgery during Trump's information. That's what "as far as I can tell" means. Doesn't mean it didn't take place; it just means I couldn't find any evidence that it did. And of course, absence of evidence does is not evidence of absence. I do find it curious, though, that despite your comment about medical privacy you said, "Such surgeries are rare and - gasp - occurred under Trump's first term. You seem to be saying that such surgeries did occur, and also saying that no evidence of occurrence could exist because medical privacy. Make up your mind.

Well, no shit, Captain Obvious. What the heck does that have to do with any of this?

Really? I took no such stances, nor did I express support for actions that deny anybody access to anything. If you think I did either of these things, please point out where in my post I did so. Otherwise, find something else to be irrational about.

Either you didn't read what I posted very carefully or you didn't understand it. I'll try again.

(1) Her statement didn't kill her, its out-of-context use in Trump's campaign ad did. (2) My post pointed out that sex reassignment therapy for prisoners started during Trump's first term. As far as I can tell, no prisoners received sex reassignment surgery during Trump's first term, but they did receive therapy in one form or another. If you can cite an authoritative source to the contrary, I will happily stand corrected. (3) Notwithstanding your implication, I bear no ill will towards trans individuals or the LGBTQ community at large.

The genocide thing cost her Progressive votes; the sex change for prisoners thing cost her Independent and Moderate votes. "Never Trumpers" would have voted for a loaf of bread in preference to Trump.

"Now"?? The term "community college" gained wider recognition and use in the late 1940s, after the Truman Commission Report of 1947. Prior to that, the focus of junior colleges was to prepare students for transfer to 4-year schools, but the focus broadened to include offering vocational training and serving broader community needs. In 1967, the California state legislature enacted Senate Bill 669, which renamed the junior colleges to community colleges. Hardly a new term, or a euphemism.

IMHO, what killed Kamala's chances was the Trump ad showing the interview where she supported sex reassignment surgery for prison inmates. Regardless of your opinion on sexual identity issues, you have to admit that was a strange, edge-case sort of choice for a hill to die on. The Trump ad, as you might expect, presented Harris' position as a new and radical left-wing idea; ironically, the first "gender-affirming therapy" given to inmates was during Trump's first term, and a number inmates have successfully sued to obtain sex-reassignment surgery. I think Independent voters saw the ad and asked themselves why on Earth she would think that should be a key policy to highlight, when there were so many other issues of great interest to voters. As James Carville famously said, "It's the economy, stupid."

Washington made a lot of money in real estate, but his net worth at his death (around $500 million in today's dollars) makes him a piker in comparison to other world leaders. William the Conqueror, for example, was worth about $200 billion in today's dollars. Putin's net worth is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $200 billion.

That's a nice, thinly disguised whatabout you have there. Totally disrupting and then trying to restart supply chains during COVID didn't work out well for anyone. Now, would you like to explain what that has to do with the tariff discussion?

I had a part time job working in the toy department at Sears back when Sears was actually profitable. That, plus watching the career full-timers in the adjacent menswear department gave me added motivation to complete my BSEE.

Not just non-profits. Resellers do not pay sales tax on the items they purchase to resell.

I'm a regular customer at a local diner that has added a notice to the menu advising people that menu items that contain eggs have been subjected to a price increase due to the increase cost of eggs.

He indicated his uncertainty as to the spelling. I won't call you an idiot, but you do seem to be a bit of a jerk.

No, the post talked about doing the absolute minimum to avoid being fired. Simply saying something is a "work ethic issue" doesn't equate to "this is fireable offense". Firing for cause generally involves dishonesty or egregious violation of policy. Doing what your told, and nothing more, by itself won't get you fired; it will just negatively affect your career growth.

I don't know how you list anything implicitly; a list is pretty explicit. But putting that aside, anyone in a professional position, and most tradesmen as well, are expected not to "walk past" a problem without at least reporting it. It's called "being proactive", and is considered a desirable trait in most situations. Doing as you're instructed without showing any initiative won't usually result in termination for cause (but if you're in an "at will" employment state, it may well), but it will most likely put you on the "people we can safely lay off without causing undue harm to the the organization" list for use at the next "reduction in force", and it's definitely not going to get you known as a valued employee. That may not be important to you; if not, then by all means, carry on.

The numbers he mentioned (cutting by 50% to 65%) mean going from ludicrously high (145%) to ridiculously high (51% to 73%). By Grabthar's hammer, what a savings!

Yes, they're meeting the minimum requirements of the job, which in general means doing the minimum to do what you've been directed to do and nothing more. I've worked with drones like that. Don't take any initiative. Don't identify any issues. Avoid acquiring new skills. Don't seek interesting assignments. And don't complain when you get the absolute minimum pay raise at review time, or no raise at all. You can always leave and get a job somewhere else, and you're sure to get glowing references. Sounds like a satisfying, fulfilling way to spend 40.00 hours per week of your life.

Is it possible that yours is one of the few radars it's slipped under? I can help you with that.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of whiny, helicopter-parented ex-children out there who believe they merit special treatment because they've always received special treatment. From my own personal observations, they aren't very successful when released into the wild. But long COVID is a real thing, and it's pretty nasty.