Jump to content

DDD Dad

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12191
  • Joined

Posts posted by DDD Dad

  1. On 2/8/2024 at 3:17 PM, Skipper said:

    Nice red herring in the first sentence.  If you want a substantive response, I don't think I took a position in posts above on low risk vaccinations.  But you are correct in your assumption that I see no real benefit at an individual level (in particular given in many cases negative vaccine reaction is similar to actually contracting the disease).  I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that vaccinating low risk people materially impacts death or severe disease in high risk people.  Do you have any data to back that up? Because I don't recall seeing data that "cases" or "infections" are materially mitigated by a vax since the O.G. vax (i.e., until it mutated via Delta).  It's a big reason why way back in 2021 I was pro vaccine mandate until I wasn't.  Because post Delta the data did not support that vaccination was materially reducing the spread (it was still reducing severity, so it was still a decent debate at the time given hospital capacity issues).   Do you have new data that supports your position? I know how much you hate anecdotal data but most of the (few) people I know who have actually gotten a vax in the past year also got Covid in the past year (both parents, aunt + wife's low risk friend that led to my initial response).  Also observational but Anastasis made the point above he sees no real correlation.   To be clear, I'm entirely supportive of my 70+ parents getting annual vaccinations.

    As you admitted, the death data posted above is not responsive to actual points made that got you worked up.  But since you like to make global warming analogies if anyone makes anecdotal observations, here is hospitalization data for under 40 which is a better reference for what we were actually talking about (i.e., risk evaluation).   Note that this data does not net out high risk under 40 (which I would expect make up the majority of hits) and also doesn't appear to distinguish "with COVID" vs. "for COVID", yet even without those potential (material) differentiators, still proves the point about risk evaluation quite nicely IMO.

    CDC COVID Data Tracker: Hospital Admissions

     

     

    What is that saying?  Better to be silent and... or something?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 43 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

    I make amazing food every day. I don’t make Jade’s creepy chili: 

    Hawaiian Guava cake

    My Queso 

    Elote Cornbread 

    Peach custard pies. They are more like a custard + streusel with homemade crust. This pie has  won many awards for my friend’s mom in Alabama. She won television competition with it. it’s insanely good—not a typical peach cobbler type deal. I had to beg to get recipe.) I can cook and bake man. Don’t throw Jade’s chili at me. I’m actually more ok with falsely being labeled a serial killer (the siren of 6th street  the ripper of Rainey, blah blah) than I am for being thought of a shitty cook/baker. I will fight you! Lol. 

    IMG_8578.jpeg

    IMG_3592.jpeg

    IMG_7439.jpeg

    IMG_6976.jpeg

    474.gif

    • Haha 1
  3. 1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

    No, the office in which the leatherbound books are kept smells of rich mahagony.  Do you even Ron Burgundy, bro?  

    Ambiguous modifiers, bro.  Be better.

  4. 34 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

    Uh, do you even Westlaw, bro?  We have mountains and mountains of federal criminal and civil statutes.  I have many, many leatherbound volumes in my office which smells of rich mahagony.  

    Why would leather smell like wood?

    • Haha 1
  5. 5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

    "Dark to Table Restaurants", Nicole?  

    Sure you're not subconsciously projecting, Miss "All the victims have dark hair and had eaten/drank at the Grove Park Inn on Rainey Street just prior to their unfortunate demise."  

    Also, your calendar alibi don't check out either.  Not saying, just saying...

     

    • Haha 1
  6. 2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    The actual gains they've enjoyed over the past 3 years, versus the hits they took during Trump's presidency, are going to have an effect. "It's the Economy, Stupid."

    And thanks to the efforts of Marc Elias and his merry band of legal professionals (https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/), these efforts have been almost completely neutered; in some cases, backfiring spectacularly.

    summer-child-my-sweet-summer-child.gif

  7. 1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

    Nope. Biden is literally campaigning on this right now; all the Union groups that ignored the Democrats are throwing their weight behind Biden because, for the first time since the Clintons, a Democrat actually worked on improving Rust Belt jobs and opportunities and has real wins. (Source: I follow a lot of Biden campaign shit on Threads.)

    It ain't wishcasting. It's in the message and in the polls.

    I agree that the first paragraph of your post wasn't wishcasting.  It was the other two paragraphs to which I was referring:

    Quote

    Trump has already lost the blue collar workers who got him elected in 2016. The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails. The rest were either run off or quit, or chose to ride the tiger. 骑虎难下 - it's easy to ride a tiger; it's the dismount that's difficult.

    I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

    I don't see any indication that Trump has lost any blue collar workers.  If anything they're more supportive of him than ever.  If you have evidence to the contrary by all means please enlighten me.

    I think it's extremely naive to assume that Trump will lose.  With all of the shenanigans and efforts the RNC has undertaken to preserve slim advantages in battleground critical electoral vote states the die is is far from cast on the outcome of this election.

    I don't want Trump off the ballot to give the Democratic nominee an advantage on Election Day.  I want him off the ballot because I believe his actions disqualify him from public office.  If that results in another Republican winning, so be it.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  8. 11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    This is true, but also after listening to the oral arguments today I'm inclined to agree with SCOTUS' point that the 14th is a federal issue, not a state issue.

    IMO, Trump should not be allowed to be President, but I don't think states should have the authority to determine that.

    As others have said, this feels like a 9-0 or 8-1 opinion, but I think they are likely to nix his immunity defense in the coming weeks.

    What struck me from what I was able to hear of the argument (had to jump on a call during the SG's portion) was what seemed like another Calvinball argument that could result from a reversal. 

    • You can't remove Trump from the Ballot because he can only be removed after he attains office.
    • You can't use the 14th amendment to remove him once he's obtained office because the only way to remove him is by impeachment.
    • Rage+1 1
  9. 6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Obviously, I'm a layman here, but what does the court's "perceived legitimacy" mean in practical terms? Do you see folks just ignoring their rulings?

    https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/the-supreme-courts-legitimacy-dilemma/

    From the article:

    The judiciary has no army; it must rely on others to obey its decrees. Government officials and the general public are more likely to comply if they view the Court as “legitimate” — that is, as an institution that does and should have the power to affect legal rights and obligations. It is particularly crucial that those who disagree with a given decision view the Court as legitimate; such disappointed individuals will respect the adverse ruling if they view the institution itself as authoritative. Thus, political scientists have a refrain: “Legitimacy is for losers.”

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

    I have seen nothing in the last few years that tells me Roberts gives one flying fuck about the court's "legitimacy".

    Perceived legitimacy.  Without it the court is neutered.  He absolutely cares about that.  

  11. 11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    Except that Biden can now campaign heavily on the Republicans refusing to vote in favor of the very border deal they proposed. "You want a secure border? Vote Biden!"

    Trump has already lost the blue collar workers who got him elected in 2016. The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails. The rest were either run off or quit, or chose to ride the tiger. 骑虎难下 - it's easy to ride a tiger; it's the dismount that's difficult.

    I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

    This is wishcasting fan fiction.

    Roberts must feel desperate to sway at least one of the three non-Republican appointed justices to reverse here.  Otherwise the court's already suspect legitimacy will suffer further and possibly irreparable erosion.

    There are some rumors/speculation floating about that there may be some horse trading going on at the court to garner votes on this case with the immunity case that follows.  To me that makes no sense as the immunity case seems pretty obvious.  I guess we'll see.

  12. 4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    kavanaugh, ACB, Gorsuch

    Roberts (appointed during W's first term).

    Oops.  Strike that.  I got my years wrong.  He was nominated in 2005.

  13. Just now, bolverk said:

    But wasn't Trump an officer of the United States, after having sworn the oath, at the time of the *insurrection?

    *Different argument, I know.

    According to the petitioner, no.  "Officer of the United States is a term of art limited to officials who are appointed, not the elected offices of President and Vice President."  

  14. 1 minute ago, bolverk said:

    It's such a weird argument to my mind. I'm listening on NPR, and earlier, someone mentioned how that generation understood the term, but then there's the Postal Act, which understood the president to be an "officer of the United States," as has been pointed out earlier. Is that a red herring? If not, why hasn't it been mentioned?

     

    Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

×
×
  • Create New...