Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-puts-on-hold-justice-dept-move-to-dismiss-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-to-hear-outside-groups-challenges/2020/05/12/2fb4e356-949d-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html?fbclid=IwAR33cyKeSSLrCiJWt6GZsmiSrkTWvgzXl76FSnvqkS5PaeF99i_ZsmhL42Y

Still has a paywall, but the headline tells the tale.

And I offered to pay for your subscription, Kid, a while ago. The offer still stands.

How about you stop addressing me for a couple of days.

Give it a rest, pal

Thanks.

Hahahaha.

Now you're pissed off because I offered to pay for a WaPo subscription for you. So, you want me to stop addressing you 24 hours after you gave me this impassioned statement about what I don't understand. You get to address me, but I don't get to address you?!


You asked me to provide links to what I meant by "So much for meaningful exchange."

Below are the posts to which I referred:

and

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/politics/afghanistan-taliban-resumption-deal/index.html

Afghan government resumes attacks on the Taliban "in the wake of several deadly terrorist attacks, including one that targeted a maternity hospital that killed at least 13 people, including two newborn babies."

[josh]

The childhood disease we'd seen in NY has now likely appeared in Kentucky.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/05/12/louisville-hospital-evaluating-kids-possible-covid-19-related-symptoms/3114866001/

[josh]

[bodiddley]

21 deaths in a population of about 24 million given the 2 week incubation period seems just about statistically impossible, if there was any travel between Wuhan and Shang Hai during the initial outbreak.

One of my main take aways with COVID-19 is that it isn't particularly difficult to stop transmission chains, if there is political will and cooperation.  And starting it early is key.

Shanghai started early a pretty strong voluntary lockdown.  Businesses were ordered to close, except for food and drug stores and big box stores selling essentials.  Mask wearing became obligatory and quickly you weren't allowed in to any store without wearing a mask and most would check your temp as well.

Volunteer guards were posted at entryways to alley communities and buildings.  Noone was allowed in unless they were a resident or invited.  Invitees had to have their temp checked, and their name, phone# and ID card # recorded for contact tracing purposes.   Residents were allowed out whenever they wanted, masked, but there wasn't really anywhere to go.  Subways and buses kept running to keep up appearances of normality and allow health care and food service workers to get to their essential jobs.

This went on for 9 weeks.  Businesses closed.  Everyone staying home mostly.  Everyone wearing a mask in public.  Regular temp checks to enter food stores and banks, etc.  People not gathering and not interacting much, and masked when they did.  Transmissions stopped.  SH actually sent thousands of medical personnel to Wuhan and Hubei.  The top hospital I'm familiar with sent 450 doctors and nurses to Wuhan for about 10 weeks.  They erected a large billboard on the hospital grounds with each one's picture and name.    This wouldn't have occurred if their was a big threat/outbreak in SH.  While the full province-wide lockdown in Hubei did a lot to limit the spread and protect the rest of China. 

When the re-opening started in SH it was gradual.  The first couple weeks I went to the gym to play basketball, I had to get temp-checked and leave my name and Phone # for contact tracing purposes.  In SH, schools just reopened last week, but only for the senior classes of high school and middle school, 3+ months after closing. 

I assume anyone who tested positive in SH had their phone records checked to find out where they've been to contract trace.   Some cities, such as Hangzhou a few hours south had a mandatory curfew.  Only one person per household was allowed out per day to food shop.

Shanghai's protective measures were thorough and complied with and the virus never caught much of a toehold here.   I've felt pretty safe here and trusted the implemented measures.  It's a respiratory virus much like the flu in terms of transmission.  It's not that hard to stop given the right measures complied with. 

[bodiddley]

China is trying to re-open but remain vigilant against a 2nd wave of infections.

There were 6 new cases in Wuhan the other day. 
Gov't response?
They want all 11M Wuhan residents tested within the next 10 days.
https://apnews.com/bb10a5e0d31228b0b4ca96c7ee8d2937
Previously 50M people were totally locked down in Hubei Province for 3 months.

Compare that response to all the delays and half-measures and premature reopening in the US. Of course, you get different outcomes. 

[LarryBnDC]

Adam Schiff, liar extradonaire 
Starting in December 2017 Schiff boasted to CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the (Trump ) campaign accepted.
The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help
 In April 2018, Mr. Schiff countered a release  by Devin Nunez that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record by stating he (Schiff) had seen direct” empirical evidence of collusion.
Well here is what we know today AFTER the Mueller Report found NO evidence of a collusion :
James Clapper, former Director ofNational Intelligence  “ I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”
former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”
According to the Wall Street Journal the same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else

All of which  begs the question why would any responsible news organization believe anything Adam Schiff has to say about ANYTHING?

Do you think anyone gives a shit?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Starting in December 2017 Schiff boasted to CNN that collusion was a fact

And the Mueller Investigation found that collusion was a fact.  And the Roger Stone case found that collusion was a fact.

And the "president" obsequiously calling up Putin to boast about Flynn getting off and to chuckle about the "hoax" when his own intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned that Russia is planning on interfering in the election again in 2020 is collusion in plain sight.

Facts.

[barton]

Hands, touching hands
Reaching out, touching me, touching you....   

Just a couple of weeks ago Barton dissed Neil Diamond.

You don't really do humor,  do you?   

[Hairy Lime]

"We're asking for temporary presidential immunity," Jay Sekulow told the Supreme Court Tuesday.

"Temporary presidential immunity," in the way the President's lawyers describe it, would mean that Trump (or whomever is president at the time) couldn't be investigated or prosecuted while holding the office of President. No subpoenas, no testimony, no indictments, if investigators sought those.

"Criminal process targeting the President" violates the Constitution, Sekulow said.

There is no evidence that Sekulow's last comment there is true.

Evidence is the wrong term. There is no precedent for it.

And had there been "temporary presidential immunity," how would that have impacted prior presidencies? Further, why should they be protected from state criminal charges, even if they were protected from federal? And how do Civil Suits play into this. Would the VP be similarly protected? Can criminal behavior before election no longer be prosecuted because of the election? Where would Spiro T. Agnew fit in with this?

Well, Clinton would never have been impeached because he would not have been deposed..Suckatlaw was trying distinguish Jones v. Clinton because Clinton was a civil case, but that merely shows how "difference" and "distinction" are different. The basis of the argument was that even making the President sit with lawyers for a couple hours might make him miss his tee time at Mar-a-Lago sorry, might keep him from anger tweeting while watching Hannity might distract him from his duties. There is no reason why a distraction to prepare civil discovery responses and a distraction to prepare a subpoena response are different, and if anything the societal interest in the criminal case is higher. Suckatlaw did concede the Grand Jury can investigate but without subpoenas,  which is a little like.saying you can build.a house but cannot use tools.

Could President Trump shoot somebody on 5th Avenue in NYC and not be prosecuted until after he left office? And why does prosecution inhibit the investigative process?

I think the logical result of the argument is no. Technically Suckatlaw was only arguing that the investigation could not involve responses from the President to the Grand Jury, but if pretrial work is to distracting and an interference with Presidential duties, having him in the dock for a full out criminal trial would be a greater interference.

Lastly, what relationship does this have, if any, to congressional subpoena power.

None directly. That was a separate issue. If ANY of the Justices buy the temporary immunity claim they should be metaphorically yanked from the Supreme Court stage by a very long shepherd's crook. Jones v. Clinton should be binding precedent.

Mind you under JvC Trump could have argued the the specific discovery was burdensome on his duties, but that might only justify a delay in the process or additional time to respond.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Starting in December 2017 Schiff boasted to CNN that collusion was a fact

And the Mueller Investigation found that collusion was a fact.  And the Roger Stone case found that collusion was a fact.

LOL

[bodiddley]

February 29th, the day of the first reported U.S. death from the coronavirus, and the president fielded an urgent question: “How should Americans prepare for this virus?” a reporter asked. “Should they go on with their daily lives? Change their routine? What should they do?”

In that moment, America was flying blind into a pandemic; the virus was on the loose, and nobody quite knew where. The lives of tens of thousands hinged on the advice about to be delivered by the president and his top public-health advisers. Trump began: “Well, I hope they don’t change their routine,” before he trailed off, and, quite uncharacteristically, called on an expert to finish the response. “Bob?” he said. “Do you want to answer that?”

Redfield stepped to the podium. “The risk at this time is low,” Redfield told the country. “The American public needs to go on with their normal lives.”

This reassurance came at precisely, and tragically, the wrong time. With a different answer, much of the human devastation that was about to unfold in the United States would have been avoidable. Academic research from Imperial College in London, modeling the U.S. response, estimates that up to 90 percent of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented had the U.S. moved to shut down by March 2nd. Instead, administration leaders dragged their feet for another two weeks, as the virus continued a silent, exponential assault. By early May, more than 75,000 Americans were dead.

Even as he spoke, Redfield knew the country should be taking a different course. The Coronavirus Task Force had resolved to present the president with a plan for mitigation efforts, like school and business closures, on February 24th, but reportedly reversed course after Trump exploded about the economic fallout.

This piece of reporting detailing the failed response from the testing failure, failure to engage the private sector, bureaucratic infighting, Trump being an idiot, Redfied/Hahn/Azar is really Required Reading.

I was just amazing to me in real time, how much time was being wasted and squandered.  The delays were maddening and deadly.  And then way late in mid-March only half-measures were enacted, which was even more frustrating.

Trump killed 100K Americans by his incompetence.

[bankshot1]

21 deaths in a population of about 24 million given the 2 week incubation period seems just about statistically impossible, if there was any travel between Wuhan and Shang Hai during the initial outbreak.

One of my main take aways with COVID-19 is that it isn't particularly difficult to stop transmission chains, if there is political will and cooperation.  And starting it early is key.

The Chinese response within country seemed prescient for a new virus.  And I agree if you have the power and will you can stop or severely slow transmission. But to be able to isolate a new disease so quickly seems sort of extraordinary.

Given the speed of the spread and the two-week incubation period of a new disease, and the assumed level of travel betwen the two very large cities (Wuhan 10Million Shanghai 24M) the level of infection and deaths as reported in Shang Hai seems too low and leads to some questions. You would think within the initial 3-4 week period as the virus was exposing itself, the interactions of the two populations and impact would have been greater than reported.

ie the bat was already out of the bag.

[barton]

It will be so hard to get an accurate tally of CV19 deaths,  given that China is a totalitarian society.   In the US,  accuracy problems can also be political, and there is also the way COD are filled out here,  and the many untested people who died.   It's also the case that Asian people have millennia of exposure to species that carry various coronavirus and so may have some advantages building immunity to novel strains as they jump from animals to humans.   So there are unknown weighting factors that may take years to unravel,  if ever.   It is certainly plausible that societies with strong communitarian cultures, like Vietnam or China,  are inherently better set up to contain outbreaks than cultures of individualism.   

It's ironic that,  in China,  personal accounts of "few people I know got sick or know sick people" may be a more useful barometer than state-sanctioned stats.   

[bodiddley]

It's a novel coronavirus.  But China had SARS back in 2003, which also posed a threat to Shanghai, but remained mostly in Beijing.  And COVID-19 isn't much different than a normal flu virus in terms of transmission.  Quarantine, isolate, contact trace, wear masks.  Not any different than the 1918 Spanish Flu, or really centuries before that.

Two things probably helped.  It was Winter when people don't travel as much, and it was just prior to Chinese New Year when travel is especially low right before a mass migration.  One of the year's lowest travel periods just before the huge peak travel period.  [US equivalent might be people travelling Dec 12- 18.  Though in terms of travelers, probably more like mid-Jan or Feb travel].

China decided they needed to lock down just before CNY, to prevent the huge exodus and movement all over the country.  It really forced their hand to act decisively.