Dr. Racket wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Yes, you have. For years.
Credit where it's due.
Pretty much everyone has said that since 2015
Well, not true. The Big Three idiots here all think Trump is a great businessman even today, and Sally has gone on and on about how smart and wealthy he is. Also, there have been others who have not been as sure. But, YES, lots have said the same as I have...but I'm not speaking for them. Just saying that I was correct yet again.
The US has managed to drop its new case count by 10% or so over the last week or so. Which is significant and material.
Deaths are stable.
Israel has plateaued for both.
All using the 7 day average.
CA is a mess. On Dec 1, just 6 weeks ago, 64 people per day were dying. Now 527 people per day are dying.
Over 2 million deaths so far, worldwide. The US has been 20% of that number, consistently and still is.
agip wrote:
The US has managed to drop its new case count by 10% or so over the last week or so. Which is significant and material.
Deaths are stable.
I'd be a little cautious in interpreting a decline. The peak we saw the previous week could have just been "catch up" in reporting after the holidays.
Still, there's little indication of growth in cases over the past few weeks so there's reason to believe we're near the peak whether it has already passed or not.
Monkeys typing wrote:
agip wrote:
The US has managed to drop its new case count by 10% or so over the last week or so. Which is significant and material.
Deaths are stable.
I'd be a little cautious in interpreting a decline. The peak we saw the previous week could have just been "catch up" in reporting after the holidays.
Still, there's little indication of growth in cases over the past few weeks so there's reason to believe we're near the peak whether it has already passed or not.
No doubt.
This is good too.
https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/1350802789291745282?s=21Flagpole wrote:
The Big Three idiots here . . .
Speaking o' which--I haven't been following the thread religiously, but it seems that RFH hasn't been here for a while. Does that mean s/he is finally following through on the Runningart Challenge?
For the upcoming impeachment trial that Sally says cannot Constitutionally happen, it’s all about getting 67 votes.
I’ll assume 51 are locked up (all Democrats, Independents and Mitt Romney.
16 additional Rs have to convict.
It’s not going to be about how the trial goes or any evidence.
It will be a political calculation and they want to spin it. It also may vary based on Trumps voters feel or express themselves.
And maybe based on what McConnell wants to do.
agip wrote:
The US has managed to drop its new case count by 10% or so over the last week or so. Which is significant and material.
Deaths are stable.
Israel has plateaued for both.
All using the 7 day average.
CA is a mess. On Dec 1, just 6 weeks ago, 64 people per day were dying. Now 527 people per day are dying.
Over 2 million deaths so far, worldwide. The US has been 20% of that number, consistently and still is.
The pandemic doesn't make much news anymore. It's like the media found something more interesting to be alarmed and outraged about. At times, you wonder if the media are as manipulative as they often appear to be, or whether they are more like little kids with a new toy.
Those California numbers are really scary. I'm glad someone noticed!
Monkeys typing wrote:
agip wrote:
The US has managed to drop its new case count by 10% or so over the last week or so. Which is significant and material.
Deaths are stable.
I'd be a little cautious in interpreting a decline. The peak we saw the previous week could have just been "catch up" in reporting after the holidays.
Still, there's little indication of growth in cases over the past few weeks so there's reason to believe we're near the peak whether it has already passed or not.
The primary reason cases are down is becasue it is winter. Isolate indoors or freeze outdoors. As soon as it warms up cases will climb again.
L L wrote:
For the upcoming impeachment trial that Sally says cannot Constitutionally happen, it’s all about getting 67 votes.
I’ll assume 51 are locked up (all Democrats, Independents and Mitt Romney.
16 additional Rs have to convict.
It’s not going to be about how the trial goes or any evidence.
It will be a political calculation and they want to spin it. It also may vary based on Trumps voters feel or express themselves.
And maybe based on what McConnell wants to do.
In regard to the Ukraine impeachment, there were a couple of outs available to Republican senators. They could say, since no witnesses were allowed, the case was based on heresay from dubious witnesses. The other was to acknowledge that Trump did a bad thing, but it didn't warrant removal from office.
This time, there is no out. A yay vote is doing the right thing and a nay indicates a political calculation.
L L wrote:
It’s not going to be about how the trial goes or any evidence.
It will be a political calculation and they want to spin it. It also may vary based on Trumps voters feel or express themselves.
And maybe based on what McConnell wants to do.
It sounds like McConnell isn't going to direct the Republican caucus to oppose impeachment. The speculation is that while McConnell would much prefer the party make a clean break with Trumpism, neither does he want to be seen leading that charge. That's probably true of a significant number of Republican senators, that is, they'd like to break with Trump but fear his still strong base.
If Trump is to be actually convicted by the Senate, it hings on how well his support holds up post inauguration. That in turn may depend upon what comes out after Trump has lost the protection of his office which may be an argument for the House holding off on passing the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a couple months while Congress is focused on starting up the Biden agenda.
L L wrote:
For the upcoming impeachment trial that Sally says cannot Constitutionally happen, it’s all about getting 67 votes.
I’ll assume 51 are locked up (all Democrats, Independents and Mitt Romney.
16 additional Rs have to convict.
It’s not going to be about how the trial goes or any evidence.
It will be a political calculation and they want to spin it. It also may vary based on Trumps voters feel or express themselves.
And maybe based on what McConnell wants to do.
67 votes are required only of 100 senators cast yes or no votes. If only 95 senators votes yes of no then at least 2/3rds of 95 is 64 yes votesrequired to convict. This is important to take into consideration becasue several senators might chose to vote present not show up at all in order to protect themselves from Trump's violent MA-GAs.
Monkeys typing wrote:
L L wrote:
It’s not going to be about how the trial goes or any evidence.
It will be a political calculation and they want to spin it. It also may vary based on Trumps voters feel or express themselves.
And maybe based on what McConnell wants to do.
It sounds like McConnell isn't going to direct the Republican caucus to oppose impeachment. The speculation is that while McConnell would much prefer the party make a clean break with Trumpism, neither does he want to be seen leading that charge. That's probably true of a significant number of Republican senators, that is, they'd like to break with Trump but fear his still strong base.
If Trump is to be actually convicted by the Senate, it hings on how well his support holds up post inauguration. That in turn may depend upon what comes out after Trump has lost the protection of his office which may be an argument for the House holding off on passing the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a couple months while Congress is focused on starting up the Biden agenda.
Holding off on passing articles of impeachment for a month or so might be a good idea.
I don't think the senate will convict unless Trump tries a self pardon. The public outrage over a self pardon will easily sink him.
Monkeys typing wrote:
L L wrote:
It’s not going to be about how the trial goes or any evidence.
It will be a political calculation and they want to spin it. It also may vary based on Trumps voters feel or express themselves.
And maybe based on what McConnell wants to do.
It sounds like McConnell isn't going to direct the Republican caucus to oppose impeachment. The speculation is that while McConnell would much prefer the party make a clean break with Trumpism, neither does he want to be seen leading that charge. That's probably true of a significant number of Republican senators, that is, they'd like to break with Trump but fear his still strong base.
If Trump is to be actually convicted by the Senate, it hings on how well his support holds up post inauguration. That in turn may depend upon what comes out after Trump has lost the protection of his office which may be an argument for the House holding off on passing the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a couple months while Congress is focused on starting up the Biden agenda.
There are MA-GA exterminsts calling for termination of Trump for being a traitor to their cause. Trump is like the fool who walked into the swamp of hungry aligators a few couple and exited unscathed. He decides he the gators will never attack and enters the swamp and then is never seen again. Trump is not as important to MA-GAs as people might think. Destruction of the government and anarchy is what they lust for.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I don't think the senate will convict unless Trump tries a self pardon. The public outrage over a self pardon will easily sink him.
I think they will convict. The penalies will be loss of benefits and prevention from running for national office ever again. Trump could still run for local office, and he can certainly afford his own security and healthcare.
Trump is starting a plan to raise $2 billion for a presidential library somewhere in Florida. That cost is 4x the cost of Obama's library which is being built on prime real estate (high land cost) in Chicago. People are wonder why the amount is so high. Trump is a developer so his intentions are likely to include a lot of land with a small library and a golf course and residential/business building development, all paid for by small donors. I think the plan is deeply flawed.
https://politicalwire.com/2021/01/16/trump-envisions-2-billion-presidential-library/
new coll wrote:
Trump is starting a plan to raise $2 billion for a presidential library somewhere in Florida. That cost is 4x the cost of Obama's library which is being built on prime real estate (high land cost) in Chicago. People are wonder why the amount is so high. Trump is a developer so his intentions are likely to include a lot of land with a small library and a golf course and residential/business building development, all paid for by small donors. I think the plan is deeply flawed.
https://politicalwire.com/2021/01/16/trump-envisions-2-billion-presidential-library/
He's not going to raise $2B and what could he possibly display in the library?
new coll wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I don't think the senate will convict unless Trump tries a self pardon. The public outrage over a self pardon will easily sink him.
I think they will convict. The penalies will be loss of benefits and prevention from running for national office ever again. Trump could still run for local office, and he can certainly afford his own security and healthcare.
The trial with lots of video's of Trump's comments and witnesses claiming they thought the attack was under Trumps orders order might convince some people. . As of now I don't think the senate would have enough to convict.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
He's not going to raise $2B and what could he possibly display in the library?
Pictures and videos of himself -- all of the Apprentice shows; all of his rallies. A full sized gold statute of himself (golden idol). A series of gold plaques describing his version of his life with just a few words each. And that dumb book filled with his executive orders. About 1000 square feet should be enough.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5f8f6867290000b408c6a586.jpegDan Kahneman wrote:
new coll wrote:
I think they will convict. The penalies will be loss of benefits and prevention from running for national office ever again. Trump could still run for local office, and he can certainly afford his own security and healthcare.
The trial with lots of video's of Trump's comments and witnesses claiming they thought the attack was under Trumps orders order might convince some people. . As of now I don't think the senate would have enough to convict.
They will if the only penalties are loss of benefits and prevention of running for office again. You don't need 17 republican senators to vote yes. If 25 republican senators chose not to vote or show up then 2/3rds of 75 voting senators (50 yeses) would be enough to convict. Getting several republicans to not cast a vote is something McConnell is certainly aware about as an option to saving face while improving the possibility of a conviction.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
new coll wrote:
I think they will convict. The penalies will be loss of benefits and prevention from running for national office ever again. Trump could still run for local office, and he can certainly afford his own security and healthcare.
The trial with lots of video's of Trump's comments and witnesses claiming they thought the attack was under Trumps orders order might convince some people. . As of now I don't think the senate would have enough to convict.
It doesn't matter if he is convicted or not. The testimony against Trump will be devastating and what's left of his reputation will be destroyed. If the Republicans bail him out again, it will make no difference.
The idea that he will ever run for the presidency again, is ridiculous.
