President Joe Biden

You know they need to get rid of stuff like this BEFORE elections.

How do ballots that get mailed in arrive without a postmark anyway?

By the way speaking of the same we saw interesting stuff in PA. Ballots mailed out and returned on the same day? How is that possible? Ballots mailed out and received the very next day? How is that possible?

There are all kinds of things election wise that have to be fixed in order to have elections that everyone believes is done properly.

"The Virginia Board of Elections rule allowing officials to count ballots that arrived without a postmark up to three days after the election was illegal, a state judge ruled.


Virginia Circuit Court Judge William Eldridge ruled the state’s late mail-in ballot law violated state statute and permanently banned the law in future Virginia elections, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) announced Monday. PILF sued the state’s board of elections in October on behalf of Thomas Reed, a Frederick County, Virginia election official."

dailycaller.com

Virginia Rule Allowing Late Ballots Missing Postmark Was Illegal, Court Rules

The Virginia Board of Elections rule allowing officials to count ballots that arrived without a postmark up to three days after the election was illegal.
dailycaller.com dailycaller.com
 
dad4 said:
You want to be taken seriously when you quote Shore News Network?

They can’t even write a headline. What self respecting newspaper uses the word “proof” in a headline about politics? In a high school journalism class, they would mark it all up in red and hand it back to you.

Go back to a decent conservative rag. WSJ maybe. Someone with a style sheet and standards for what they do and do not claim in the newsroom.

Yes, trash news brings out my condescension in full force.
Click to expand...

I unlike you know that knowledge can come from the most obscure places. In the last 2 weeks, I have also quoted "The Guardian" and "The Nation". I'm not closed minded and am open to almost all sources, particularly when mainstream sources are going out of their way to avoid reporting on the situation for fear of giving Trump's claims credence, however limited.
 
Grace T. said:
I unlike you know that knowledge can come from the most obscure places. In the last 2 weeks, I have also quoted "The Guardian" and "The Nation". I'm not closed minded and am open to almost all sources, particularly when mainstream sources are going out of their way to avoid reporting on the situation for fear of giving Trump's claims credence, however limited.
Click to expand...
p.s. I can't believe that you and espola are arguing it was a 100% perfect election, given the complete lack of signature verification in Pennsylvania, and there wasn't a single instance of fraud. I guess now we know why you are an "N". That's not data driven and you know that.
 
Grace T. said:
p.s. I can't believe that you and espola are arguing it was a 100% perfect election, given the complete lack of signature verification in Pennsylvania, and there wasn't a single instance of fraud. I guess now we know why you are an "N". That's not data driven and you know that.
Click to expand...
when did I say that it was perfect?

I do believe that the level of fraud was not close to sufficient to change the outcome. As do the courts.

I’m doing fine with data as an N. What’s your prediction for CA covid over the next 2 months? My Dec prediction was decline starting early/mid Jan, resulting in first legal games in March.

Care to out a stake in the sand?
 
dad4 said:
when did I say that it was perfect?

I do believe that the level of fraud was not close to sufficient to change the outcome. As do the courts.

I’m doing fine with data as an N. What’s your prediction for CA covid over the next 2 months? My Dec prediction was decline starting early/mid Jan, resulting in first legal games in March.

Care to out a stake in the sand?
Click to expand...

Then we (almost) agree. My position is the level of fraud was likely not close to sufficiently change the outcome of the election, put given the methodology in Pennsylvania what happened in that particular state is hard to tell, particularly in the absence of any wide spread nonpartisan investigation.

My eye has been more on the data in SoCal. I predicted a peak at Christmas (I was off by 2 weeks...the peak was a couple days after New Years...my friend, though nailed it and I owe him a beer when this is over). I agree with the decline and that we should be in a position to play by March (though I lean more towards the end). The big unknown variable is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and how quickly it gets approved and how much we have on hand....if all goes well it will be a game changer.

Two caveats, however. One is the data coming out of Israel. Despite the vast number of people who have gotten stuck (25%) have received the first shot), the numbers remain stubbornly high. The most likely explanation is the unique behaviors of the Orthodox community, but still I'm surprised it hasn't declined faster (for whatever other reasons...new variants etc.). It indicates the herd immunity threshold must be every high at a minimum.

The other caveat is that this decision has always been more political than about the data. Rumors are new modifications to the sports guidance out soon. If true, you and VC might be playing by late March (it will also take a few weeks to gear up conditioning)....but not LA County. The question, though, is a political question (not a data one) and it's hard to know how Newsom (now that he's behaving like a scared cat) will jump.
 
Grace T. said:
Then we (almost) agree. My position is the level of fraud was likely not close to sufficiently change the outcome of the election, put given the methodology in Pennsylvania what happened in that particular state is hard to tell, particularly in the absence of any wide spread nonpartisan investigation.

My eye has been more on the data in SoCal. I predicted a peak at Christmas (I was off by 2 weeks...the peak was a couple days after New Years...my friend, though nailed it and I owe him a beer when this is over). I agree with the decline and that we should be in a position to play by March (though I lean more towards the end). The big unknown variable is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and how quickly it gets approved and how much we have on hand....if all goes well it will be a game changer.

Two caveats, however. One is the data coming out of Israel. Despite the vast number of people who have gotten stuck (25%) have received the first shot), the numbers remain stubbornly high. The most likely explanation is the unique behaviors of the Orthodox community, but still I'm surprised it hasn't declined faster (for whatever other reasons...new variants etc.). It indicates the herd immunity threshold must be every high at a minimum.

The other caveat is that this decision has always been more political than about the data. Rumors are new modifications to the sports guidance out soon. If true, you and VC might be playing by late March (it will also take a few weeks to gear up conditioning)....but not LA County. The question, though, is a political question (not a data one) and it's hard to know how Newsom (now that he's behaving like a scared cat) will jump.
Click to expand...
If you have a segregated society, you need to do your herd immunity calculations separately. Double that if one side or the other of the split refuses vaccination or other mitigation measures. Orthodox congregations in New York seem to fit this pattern. I would be surprised if it were not similar in Israel. You may have a moderate herd immunity threshhold, but a self-segregated population acting as a disease reservoir.

I still think LA will get there quickly, but for a bad reason. You’re already at 10% confirmed infections. For a large fraction of your social interactions, one side or the other is at least temporarily immune. That should make your decline relatively fast.

As always, unless people decide to be stupid. If people decide masks are useless and indoor dining is a necessity, you will slow your recovery.
 
Grace T. said:
p.s. I can't believe that you and espola are arguing it was a 100% perfect election, given the complete lack of signature verification in Pennsylvania, and there wasn't a single instance of fraud. I guess now we know why you are an "N". That's not data driven and you know that.
Click to expand...

?????
 
dad4 said:
If you have a segregated society, you need to do your herd immunity calculations separately. Double that if one side or the other of the split refuses vaccination or other mitigation measures. Orthodox congregations in New York seem to fit this pattern. I would be surprised if it were not similar in Israel. You may have a moderate herd immunity threshhold, but a self-segregated population acting as a disease reservoir.

I still think LA will get there quickly, but for a bad reason. You’re already at 10% confirmed infections. For a large fraction of your social interactions, one side or the other is at least temporarily immune. That should make your decline relatively fast.

As always, unless people decide to be stupid. If people decide masks are useless and indoor dining is a necessity, you will slow your recovery.
Click to expand...

Agreed until the final sentence. The last will have minimum impact as there are larger drivers at work here, including the ones you point out.
 
dad4 said:
If you have a segregated society, you need to do your herd immunity calculations separately. Double that if one side or the other of the split refuses vaccination or other mitigation measures. Orthodox congregations in New York seem to fit this pattern. I would be surprised if it were not similar in Israel. You may have a moderate herd immunity threshhold, but a self-segregated population acting as a disease reservoir.

I still think LA will get there quickly, but for a bad reason. You’re already at 10% confirmed infections. For a large fraction of your social interactions, one side or the other is at least temporarily immune. That should make your decline relatively fast.

As always, unless people decide to be stupid. If people decide masks are useless and indoor dining is a necessity, you will slow your recovery.
Click to expand...

Oh and I agree that LA "will get there quickly" but even then LA County may not allow play. There's already talk that LA Schools will be restricted until at least 2022 when they can take off the EU label off the vaccines and mandate it for kids. It's a political, not data, question.
 
Grace T. said:
Oh and I agree that LA "will get there quickly" but even then LA County may not allow play. There's already talk that LA Schools will be restricted until at least 2022 when they can take off the EU label off the vaccines and mandate it for kids. It's a political, not data, question.
Click to expand...
If I am right about case numbers, the politics ceases to matter. Once we hit orange and yellow, school closures become politically untenable.
 
dad4 said:
If I am right about case numbers, the politics ceases to matter. Once we hit orange and yellow, school closures become politically untenable.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.
 
Grace T. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think future Presidents will routinely send a violent mob to the Capitol?
 
espola said:
Do you think future Presidents will routinely send a violent mob to the Capitol?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grace T. said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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."
 
Grace T. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your eyes are glued shut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top