ewsieg

What? People get mad at people for having opposing viewpoints, but don't get mad at people with viewpoints that match theirs? Since when?

Can you expand on that?

exactly. Add in there is no legitimate comparison to Biden/Ukraine. I know we sparred over Biden/Ukraine but even we both agreed nothing illegal happened there. Biden was carrying out the orders of his POTUS (who was also working with a coalition of multiple nations).

Yes, I said that. I should have clarified better apparently as I was trying to say that was the entire focus of the media/left. It was overpromised by the media and the left as collusion/conspiracy and when Mueller's report, that focused on Russian interference came out and said he absolutely saw Russian interference, but didn't see Trump colluding (despite some unethical behavior) it fell flat. It was still grounds for impeachment based on the obstruction that was identified by Mueller as he was investigating. editing to add this as I went back to see how bad I butchered my initial post and it seems to be on target with what I have been saying.

I have no idea how you could read that from what I said. My argument was that the media and the left wanted/hoped for a conspiracy/collusion/RICO/something that's illegal in regards to Trump and Russia. So when the report came back with stating that was not found, it fell flat. A symptom of overpromising. The initial focus of the investigation was not obstruction. Obviously as the investigation went on, it became a major focus (because Trump obstructed) which as pfife points out, it was a large focus of the report. I simply said it was not a focus. Maybe it would be better to say it was not the original focus, which I think I was pointing out above, not that you just get to get away with something if you obstruct. A cop may clock you at 10mph over the speed limit. He now has a reason to pull you over. If you refuse to show legally required documentation when he comes to the door, now he has a different issue that requires more work to deal with. It could escalate to the point that very little in the cops report mentions speeding. Still, the initial focus was speeding, despite other issues possibly dominating the report.

Please note that i'm not saying he shouldn't have been found guilty. What i'm saying is at the time, I don't think the evidence that we had in hand, justified it. I think it was mostly emotional. I know I wanted him voted out. I'll also will admit that part of justification for wanting him out was 1) he should have been gone for obstruction which he wasn't even impeached for and 2) he should have been found guilty for the interference for the Ukraine.

I'm not trying to play legal jargon word games like Giuliani. To the legal lay person like me, there isn't much difference between collusion and conspiracy. Looking up the definitions, they seem pretty close to me. From Oxford: collusion - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So while Mueller was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, the media was focused on Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy. When that didn't pan out, the result was a dud, because again, everyone expected Mueller (through all the 'leaks') to be focusing in on collusion. I stand by my statement that the focus of the investigation was not on obstruction even if 1/2 of the report is about obstruction. In fact, if Mueller went into the investigation with a focus on obstruction, to me that would nullify the report any further. Any investigator that plans to just keep investigating until they can put an obstruction charge in place is abusing their authority.

I don't want to go into the whole collusion thing again. In terms of the collusion that folks believe Trump did, there were crimes there, regardless if the collusion portion was or not or collusion is even the right word for it. Nearly all the claims that the left touted and believed for so many years turned out to be untrue or simply not to the degree they believed them to be. If the report showed what the left believed it would, Barr's redirection would not have lasted long. Still though, it's valuable to the left to play with the idea that Trump was the first to steal an election, without actually saying it.

Barr helped changed the narrative, no doubt. The report was not flattering to Trump, but again, it didn't show collusion either.

I want to say I heard there were 7 states that did this, with 2 of them putting something down like 'if court proceedings determine...blah blah blah' which could cover those two. My understanding is Michigan is one of the five that signed as if they were legitimate electors.

First one was related to the Ukraine call. Nothing came of the Mueller report, IMO, because as Archie mentioned, there was no evidence Trump colluded, the media and the left wanted to believe it and grasped at any straw to help validate that belief. As such, all the focus was on colluding. He could have been impeached based on the obstruction and I think Mueller would have had a better chance to pursue that if the left hadn't drummed it up into something it wasn't. Similar to Clinton, he wasn't impeached for getting a BJ, but lying about it under oath. The second one was more egregious, but in terms of conviction, I don't think it was more obvious, at least with the evidence we had at the time and the fact that any trial would need to be rushed. I think it was more of a 'we know, you know we know, you know that we know that you know that we know, type thing. At the time, the only supported evidence was how long it took him to issue a statement and reports that he was enjoying watching it on TV. This Guiliani stuff though...interesting.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/590411-cdc-study-shows-prior-covid-19-infection-and-vaccines-protected-against So it looks like, at least early on, natural immunity provides better protection than the vaccine. Before folks freak out, they smartly point out that the vaccine provides good protection after the fact AND provides protection against that first Covid infection as well, so i'm not saying it's the better option. Not mentioned in this article, but I only learned when I saw the news on the folk singer that died after she got Covid on purpose, is that the EU counts prior infection when trying to obtain their Covid passport. I know the argument is if we allow it, then people will justify it for not getting the vaccine. But the other argument in terms of how long immunity lasts, we don't know with the shots either.

Wordle 215 3/6 ⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 I should probably end here on a high note.

Many years ago I ripped all my CD's to mp3's and did 256k variable. The idea was that some day I could afford the type of equipment to tell the difference between just the default (what was it, 96? 128?). I finally bought a good set of speakers and a receiver about 5 years ago and moved a year later. They are still in the closet. No idea where the old harddrive with those mp3's are.

My guess is it's not guaranteed 90% occupancy, but that they will be paid at minimum, based on 90% occupancy. After Covid was rolling and there were less folks getting processed in the courts plus the move to get people out of the prison's in an attempt to decrease the ability to spread Covid I saw a story about a prison that was at 50% capacity but the State saw no financial gain as they had a minimal pay contract setup with the private entity running the prison. Outrageous.

In terms of actual reporting, I think they are among the best. In terms of what they choose to report, you definitely have more journalistic anecdotes which I guess you can say 'tug at your heart' and would be considered more liberal supporting.

Well, CNN and everyone else just did what all media does now, report what others report, not what they can source. NPR, in terms of news reporting is about down the middle as you can get though, so that line is pretty funny from Tigerholic. My guess based on the response from the court today, Totenburg had a source that said Sotomayor was really concerned about Covid and really didn't want to be around anyone, especially if they were not masked up, possibly even with the understanding that she relayed that concern to Roberts. Sotomayor decides not to go into the court room, making that decision on her own. Gorsuch knows Sotomayor isn't going to be there anyway, no one else made any mention about a concern so he follows the science that vaccinated people without symptoms pose little risk to each other and chooses not to wear it. Totenburg see's Gorsuch without one and no Sotomayor in attendance and assumes Sotomayor stayed away because of Gorsuch.

Fixed that for you.

Just to note, rigging the system would require something done inappropriately. A party has a right to decide the rules on how they will determine who will represent them in an election. Rigging would be more like what Hillary Clinton and the DNC did to Sanders.

I complained about Nessel recently. Just heard about this. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/13/michigan-ag-nessel-refers-gop-electors-review-federal-prosecutors/6521827001/ Instead of holding the case herself, which certainly would give her some national news if she pursued, the passed to the feds which may be able to use the additional states to setup a larger case against all electors in the various statements. Good move.

I guess my point is if there is more known, maybe it helps with situations like my wife and can be used for folks that aren't vaxxed. For instance a type of test that can show a certain acceptable level to be able to put a person no more at risk than any other vaxxed person from getting/passing the virus. I feel like the biggest reason why we haven't seen much about that is exactly what you're saying. By researching/finding that, now you have folks using it as an excuse when it would just be easier for them to get vaxxed and with that comes a process already in place that helps validate it.

I'll add as well, from watching what my wife went through, and still dealing with the remnants of, if booster #4 is recommended sometime this year, and my wife gets covid prior to it. I'd prefer her doctors have more to go on in terms of when she should wait until for the booster. Just a quick look online and i'm seeing, wait at least 9 days, 30-60 days, and some doctors saying 90 days.

Seems like knowing as much about this virus as possible doesn't seem like a wasted effort. Add in the fact that just because the smart move is for everyone to get vaccinated, it's simply not going to happen.

Additional variables makes sense, still it's been awhile though. I'd think we would have some data to give us a better understanding by now. How long has Omicron been around? Seems like it was weeks from it first being reported to having information on how the vax wouldn't have the same efficacy against it and the push for boosters in the hopes that would add efficacy.