If I am right about case numbers, the politics ceases to matter. Once we hit orange and yellow, school closures become politically untenable.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Remember in some low population counties you only need a handful of cases to go from yellow to orange so an outbreak in a particular community (perhaps with low vaccine compliance) is enough to bump you back to orange. And there (still) is no green zone.
I shy away from pure political predictions (people are emotional when it comes to politics, and don't always act rationally) but I hope you are right. If the recall goes through and is pending I agree it will make it more politically untenable as well. I also know though there is a significant portion of society that is not prepared to let this go and will push for double masks, schools closed, remote work, etc until it's "absolutely safe". Some people (like my son's godmother) are just frightened out of their minds and don't want to go out until the government has assured them they will be 100% fine. I also know we've been told we are going to be remote until fall 2021 (and possibly later dependent on schools) because the virus will still continue to circulate and until everyone's been given a crack at the vaccine you'll still get horror stories of the 40 year old cut down early. We still, after all, get those stories with the measles despite the vaccine being available forever and the measles not mutating very quickly away from it.
The other big variable we don't know is when/if this thing is going to mutate away from maximum vaccine coverage. If that were to happen, the vaccines and politics of it all gets very ugly very fast, even if it no longer poses as great of a risk as at the beginning of the crisis, again because of the expectations that have been set and because of the odd story of the 40 year old cut down early. If that happens, all bets are off.
Telling interview:
1. It's very clear Trump was in denial about what was happening early on, hoped it would magically go away, and was frustrated by Fauci's negativity
2. Fauci's pretty much a straight shooter. It doesn't appear he has an overt axe to grind with Trump and just tells it like it is (at least how he sees it). His final statement is telling, declining to jump into the partisan wars.
3. His arrogance and lack of an open mind are also on full display. The words he chooses to uses when dealing with Scott Atlas like "convert"....almost like a religion you convert to. He doesn't seem interested in dialogue with opposing views, because he can't be wrong...the other side needs to "convert" or be ignored.
4. Fauci seems to naturally be an Eeyore/Debbie Downer. No wonder he was sidelined. Politically it's the exact opposite message the Trump admin wanted to project and it will get him in trouble with the Biden admin (he's already had 1 run in dispelling the notion that there isn't a plan for vaccine distribution). He's bound to be a thorn in any admin's attempt to project a rosier than reality picture of competence.
5. HIV is his white whale. He seems still obsessed with it. It's probably why he stood firm in the job despite his wife's advice.
6. While the interview is fascinating, he really needs to stop doing press....he's not very good at it.
1. It's very clear Trump was in denial about what was happening early on, hoped it would magically go away, and was frustrated by Fauci's negativity
2. Fauci's pretty much a straight shooter. It doesn't appear he has an overt axe to grind with Trump and just tells it like it is (at least how he sees it). His final statement is telling, declining to jump into the partisan wars.
3. His arrogance and lack of an open mind are also on full display. The words he chooses to uses when dealing with Scott Atlas like "convert"....almost like a religion you convert to. He doesn't seem interested in dialogue with opposing views, because he can't be wrong...the other side needs to "convert" or be ignored.
4. Fauci seems to naturally be an Eeyore/Debbie Downer. No wonder he was sidelined. Politically it's the exact opposite message the Trump admin wanted to project and it will get him in trouble with the Biden admin (he's already had 1 run in dispelling the notion that there isn't a plan for vaccine distribution). He's bound to be a thorn in any admin's attempt to project a rosier than reality picture of competence.
5. HIV is his white whale. He seems still obsessed with it. It's probably why he stood firm in the job despite his wife's advice.
6. While the interview is fascinating, he really needs to stop doing press....he's not very good at it.
Rand Paul's motion to declare the Senate impeachment trial is unconstitutional defeated 55-45 (Romney, Collins, Sasse, Murkowski, Toomey voting to join Ds). However, it's very unlikely any R is going to vote to convict if they've already gone on the record saying its unconstitutional (it would please no one of their constituencies). So this thing is going now where barring anything new being revealed.
The only thing is going to accomplish is set a precedent for later where former presidents will be routinely impeached post hoc once they've lost office, or the House will vote during office as a motion of no confidence.
The only thing is going to accomplish is set a precedent for later where former presidents will be routinely impeached post hoc once they've lost office, or the House will vote during office as a motion of no confidence.
The litigation wars over the Biden EO's have begun.....
chicago.suntimes.com
Judge bars Biden from enforcing 100-day deportation ban
U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton issued a temporary restraining order sought by Texas, which sued on Friday against a Department of Homeland Security memo that instructed immigration agencies to pause most deportations.
chicago.suntimes.com
a. Perhaps Biden isn't as mentally far gone as some of us thought.......
b. Some Trumpian behavior has been normalized
c. If Trump had done this, CNN would be screaming conduct unbecoming 24/7
b. Some Trumpian behavior has been normalized
c. If Trump had done this, CNN would be screaming conduct unbecoming 24/7
Do you think future Presidents will routinely send a violent mob to the Capitol?
I don't necessarily think the past President did. There's no evidence Trump told people to storm the Capitol. He told them to protest, and he told them to go home when it got out of hand. Unless it comes forward that he had preadvanced knowledge of the intent of some to invade the Capitol, I don't know how you hold him to it.
But yes, I think given where we are, sadly, it is entirely possible that a future President does this now that the precedent has been set.
Desert Hound
DA
"As you probably know, Chief Justice Roberts has said he will not be the judge at the "Impeachment." Reason: The Constitution specifies that in impeachments of the President, the presiding judge will be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
But Trump is not president.
So Roberts does not think he has any role to play here -- and for once, he's right.
This further underscores how unconstitutional this whole sham is.
Making it even more egregious: That hyperpartisan leftwing Democrat Pat Leahy will instead act as the presiding "judge." He will be both judge and juror in this sham."
Your eyes are glued shut.
Glitterhater
SILVER ELITE
I am a managing editor and it pains me to say that some of the best, impartial news I've found as it pertains to politics has been from Twitter- independant journalism that's not being compensated for.
I'm not the one that goes around squinting and needs the specs
Amazon.com: Round Bubble Thick Scratchy Lensed Nerd Eye Glasses Fake Plastic Costume Prop : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry
Amazon.com: Round Bubble Thick Scratchy Lensed Nerd Eye Glasses Fake Plastic Costume Prop : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry
www.amazon.com
Desert Hound
DA
Where do you come up with that statement? That he sent a violent mob? Did you read/watch his speech? Seems as if you didn't.
whatithink
GOLD
If the impeachment is a unconstitutional, then does that mean the DoJ and FBI should be pursuing T for the alleged crimes?
If they can't pursue him, as he was President, and Congress can't impeach, as he is no longer President, does that mean that a President is above the law, can commit any crime he/she wants and then just needs to resign to avoid justice?
Yes, if he committed a crime he should be pursued for criminal conduct. IMO, impeachment no. It's a misuse of impeachment and divisive political theater...all form, no substance. I will repeat this, he was impeached by American citizens on November 3, 2020. Why make him a martyr? Let him fade off in obscurity.
whatithink
GOLD
So this has gone to committee. I assume the GOP are hard at work looking to work with it to ensure it includes all the pieces they want, their state legislatures are hard at work already apparently.
This would seem to be an outstanding opportunity to ensure Federal elections are sound and legal going forward, do you think the GOP will look to do that in the House & Senate? Alternatively, do you think they will look to work at the state level, putting different criteria in place is various states dependent on what works best locally (for them)?
A compromise bill with some of what each side wants would actually go along way to ensuring confidence in elections - but neither side would want that sadly.
Desert Hound
DA
I think you are mixing 2 things up.
Impeachment is related to removing someone from office. He is already gone. So what is the point?
What you are talking about is if he incited a riot and can the FBI investigate. That is a very different thing.
That won't go anywhere however because in his public comments/speeches did not tell people to riot. Unless there are some secret communications that come to light, he did not incite a riot.
" The only remedies in impeachment are removal from office and disqualification to hold positions of “trust or profit.” The disqualification vote can’t take place until after the removal, and you can’t “remove” someone from an office they don’t hold. What’s more if you’re impeaching the President the Chief Justice must preside. The Chief Justice isn’t presiding, so this can’t be a presidential impeachment. But if you’re not impeaching a president, and you can’t impeach a private citizen, then there’s no power to impeach Trump."
whatithink
GOLD
I agree with that TBH, impeachment is just a side show and not a very pleasant one.
whatithink
GOLD
Generally yes, but the DoJ stance has been that they do not or cannot investigate any President (for any crime). That's flawed IMO, as the standard for impeachment, i.e. high crimes etc., is different. It sets up the President as being essentially above the law (or just most laws), certainly at the moment in the partisan cesspool that is American politics as fuck knows what you'd want to have done to get 67 senators to vote to impeach you.
Besides, the state of new york is diligently conducting their own probes/investigation of Trump and Co's finances. He'll no longer be insulated by being president. I'm sure the State Attorney General and others are chomping at the bit. It may come to nothing but it's not going to be painless for trump and crew.