nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

Well you and I mightn't know a much, but people who study this sort of phenomenon for a living are figuring more and more out every day. Even knowing that people can be immune for 8 months is helpful, and tells these people more than we can imagine.

Yeah, but take that hypothetical situation. It would take 9 or 10 months before anyone could know even that. Possibly longer. It would require a large enough population to catch it, develop immunity, get over it & catch it again after 8 months, not after 9. And that's in an incredibly simplistic immunity vs no immunity scenario. Immunity itself is vastly more complicated than that with numerous other variables at play, plus the virus can mutate. No matter the level of expertise, there is no substitute for time & volume in terms of developing our understanding of this.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah, but take that hypothetical situation. It would take 9 or 10 months before anyone could know even that. Possibly longer. It would require a large enough population to catch it, develop immunity, get over it & catch it again after 8 months, not after 9. And that's in an incredibly simplistic immunity vs no immunity scenario. Immunity itself is vastly more complicated than that with numerous other variables at play, plus the virus can mutate. No matter the level of expertise, there is no substitute for time & volume in terms of developing our understanding of this.

Volume isn't the issue. Likely we had over 1m global cases by early March. Time is a factor though, so all we can say for now is that immunity likely lasts ~6 months. Still important information if you study viral mutations. And every day we don't see a spike of re-infections, our confidence in an increasing immunity time horizon can likewise increase. The worst case scenario now looks like it will be a twice annual vaccination. And this obviously poses massive logistical constraints. But months ago we probably would have taken that. The ambiguity is diminishing.

[Deleted User]

Week to go until the US election and I'm still amazed that people I know quite well are having to queue for over 4 hours just to vote.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Week to go until the US election and I'm still amazed that people I know quite well are having to queue for over 4 hours just to vote.

Why don't they just mail it in?

Neil3030

pickarooney wrote: »

Why don't they just mail it in?

A lot of people originally planned to mail in their ballots but Trump's rhetoric about the process spooked them.

[Deleted User]

pickarooney wrote: »

Why don't they just mail it in?

I've no idea - I didn't ask to be honest. I just find it bizarrely undemocratic and I'm somewhat amazed it's tolerated.

DGRulz

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no idea - I didn't ask to be honest. I just find it bizarrely undemocratic and I'm somewhat amazed it's tolerated.

I don't disagree, but it's the situation by design. I remember seeing there was some state election on in Georgia a few months ago and it was obvious then that what was happening was a practice run for whats happening now. There's some amount of shenanigans going on at a state level to force the situation to be like that in various places in order to put people off voting in person, couple that with Trump's rhetoric about postal vote and court cases being taken to disqualify postal votes that arrive after election day and it will put some people off voting at all.

Some of them over there would probably argue that democracy is the right to vote and long queues are healthy democracy in action. :rolleyes:

Podge_irl

DGRulz wrote: »

I don't disagree, but it's the situation by design. I remember seeing there was some state election on in Georgia a few months ago and it was obvious then that what was happening was a practice run for whats happening now. There's some amount of shenanigans going on at a state level to force the situation to be like that in various places in order to put people off voting in person, couple that with Trump's rhetoric about postal vote and court cases being taken to disqualify postal votes that arrive after election day and it will put some people off voting at all.

Some of them over there would probably argue that democracy is the right to vote and long queues are healthy democracy in action. :rolleyes:

That was the Governorship election in Georgia I think. The Republican Attorney General responsible for organising the election was running to be Governor. It was astounding in its brazenness.

Dave_The_Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no idea - I didn't ask to be honest. I just find it bizarrely undemocratic and I'm somewhat amazed it's tolerated.

"But we're a Republic, not a democracy!"

Like DGRulz says, feature not bug.

(I know you already know this, just saying)

swiwi_

I laughed anyway.

[Deleted User]

Trump now trailing beyond the margin of error in Florida.

Florida usually is one of the first states to announce and if he loses Florida he has virtually no path to victory, will also make it harder to undermine the vote given Florida has a Republican governor.

Early voting in some states now ahead of the total vote in 2016. Going to be an interesting few days.

Dog Botherer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trump now trailing beyond the margin of error in Florida.

Florida usually is one of the first states to announce and if he loses Florida he has virtually no path to victory, will also make it harder to undermine the vote given Florida has a Republican governor.

Early voting in some states now ahead of the total vote in 2016. Going to be an interesting few days.

A lot is going to depend on the election night totals. if Trump is ahead on election night he’s going to do everything in his power to have it called that night. both ACB and Kavanaugh have ruled on cases in the past that would strongly suggest they’d back him in this case. realistically it’s McConnell he has to convince, since McConnell has to decide if it’s worth going all in on Trump and potentially facing a massive electoral backlash down the tracks. my instinct on this is McConnell doesn’t care all that much about controlling the three houses of government; he has the Supreme Court locked for 30 years and can use it to block or allow basically anything the Republicans like.

of course this is all moot if Biden is ahead on election night, which is looking increasingly likely. really it’s just a matter of how the massively increased turnout, both in early voting, and mail in ballots balances out against the massively increased voter suppression.

Podge_irl

Kavanaugh's dissent on the Penn voting case was absolutely bonkers. He genuinely points out that there is a precedent for results being declared on the night without seemingly knowing that it is news networks that call the results on the night and that official results follow days (to weeks) later. Scary how ill informed someone on the bloody supreme court can be.

[Deleted User]

Podge_irl wrote: »

Kavanaugh's dissent on the Penn voting case was absolutely bonkers. He genuinely points out that there is a precedent for results being declared on the night without seemingly knowing that it is news networks that call the results on the night and that official results follow days (to weeks) later. Scary how ill informed someone on the bloody supreme court can be.

He's not ill informed - he is completely compromised. His performance during the senate hearings where he attacked Democratic senators tells you everything. Both he and Coney Barret were on the legal team when Bush won in 2000.

Dog Botherer

i mean it’s hardly shocking that a nakedly partisan judge would happily wind themselves in legal knots in order to justify their ideological biases, is it?

Scalia was one of the worst for that, thankfully now they have ACB on there now whose beliefs are indistinguishable from that old dickheads’.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

He's not ill informed - he is completely compromised. His performance during the senate hearings where he attacked Democratic senators tells you everything. Both he and Coney Barret were on the legal team when Bush won in 2000.

I mean, if he was remotely smart enough to be deserving of his federal bench regardless of the supreme court bench, he could be compromised and not be so **** at it. Incidentally, Roberts was also involved in that case so its actually three.

It's not even a legal knot, it is a clear factual mistake which he has now been asked to correct. It schoolyard level stuff.

Dog Botherer

he doesn’t care though. he doesn’t have to justify it to anyone, he faces no consequences for his actions. what are they gonna do, take him to court? he is the court.

obviously the Supreme Court as an institution should be binned immediately but it’s a very useful political football that distracts from meaningful policy based change so that won’t be happening.

Richie_Rich89

Very interesting interview with Glenn Greenwald. He's an extremely impressive journalist and person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk

[Deleted User]

Dog Botherer wrote: »

he doesn’t care though. he doesn’t have to justify it to anyone, he faces no consequences for his actions. what are they gonna do, take him to court? he is the court.

obviously the Supreme Court as an institution should be binned immediately but it’s a very useful political football that distracts from meaningful policy based change so that won’t be happening.

Given the serious brush they've had with authoritarianism, I wonder will Biden really take the gloves off if they win.

He's positioned himself well when asked about prosecuting Trump saying that it would be for the DOJ to decide. His pick for Attorney General will likely be telling and whilst you can't walk a foot in DC without bumping into a lawyer, his picking of a well known and by all accounts tough prosecutor as VP is also potentially illustrative.

All moot if he fails to win and if they don't take the senate I think his presidency will be effectively neutered same way Obama's was but one can hope.

Zzippy

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

Very interesting interview with Glenn Greenwald. He's an extremely impressive journalist and person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk

Journalist writes article critical of politician. Editor tells him you don't have evidence for some of that. Journalist throws a tantrum and resigns. Partisan "news" channel laps it up. Gullible people say "interesting!"

[Deleted User]

Zzippy wrote: »

Journalist writes article critical of politician. Editor tells him you don't have evidence for some of that. Journalist throws a tantrum and resigns. Partisan "news" channel laps it up. Gullible people say "interesting!"

I didn't see that but I can't believe someone posted Tucker Carlson in any kind of seriousness.

The guy has literally just made up a story about Joe Biden's son and said he lost the evidence.

Actually - he's retracted it all now apparently.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't see that but I can't believe someone posted Tucker Carlson in any kind of seriousness.

The guy has literally just made up a story about Joe Biden's son and said he lost the evidence.

Actually - he's retracted it all now apparently.

Tuckers Carlson own network lawyers have come out and said that he is not to be believed as his show is often full of lies, exaggeration and "non-literal commentary"

Neil3030

Dog Botherer wrote: »

he doesn’t care though. he doesn’t have to justify it to anyone, he faces no consequences for his actions. what are they gonna do, take him to court? he is the court.

SCOTUS judges can be impeached. Article needs to be passed by HOR then the accused is trialled in the Senate, just like Presidential impeachment. I have a sneaking suspicion that Biden/Harris will go down this route if they take both houses. Maybe just for one of Kavanaugh or ACB, leaving a slight conservative tilt on the court, so Republicans aren't too mobilized in 2024.

Zzippy

Neil3030 wrote: »

SCOTUS judges can be impeached. Article needs to be passed by HOR then the accused is trialled in the Senate, just like Presidential impeachment. I have a sneaking suspicion that Biden/Harris will go down this route if they take both houses. Maybe just for one of Kavanaugh or ACB, leaving a slight conservative tilt on the court, so Republicans aren't too mobilized in 2024.

Does it also require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, same as presidential impeachment? Because there is absolutely no point doing so when at most the Dems will have a 52-48 or 53-47 majority.

Buer

Zzippy wrote: »

Does it also require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, same as presidential impeachment? Because there is absolutely no point doing so when at most the Dems will have a 52-48 or 53-47 majority.

Yup. Majority in house followed by two thirds of senate. Ain't happening and would be a very foolish move politically by the Democrats.

molloyjh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't see that but I can't believe someone posted Tucker Carlson in any kind of seriousness.

The guy has literally just made up a story about Joe Biden's son and said he lost the evidence.

Actually - he's retracted it all now apparently.

Well it wasn't him. It was all faked by someone else and while I'm sure Carson & his team suspected as much they were happy to run with it. Now that it has emerged as being a completely fictitious document they need to row back on it to at least try and save some face. The whole "I knew Hunter Biden and he was a good guy. He had his demons and we shouldn't pile on him when he's at a personal low" is an awful attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground to distract from their embarrassment. Unsurprisingly its working well with his audience.

Neil3030

Right you are, I had completely forgotten about that 2/3s requirement.

Few alternatives to impeachment described here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20867558/remove-supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-no-impeachment

However they strike me as long shots.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

Well it wasn't him. It was all faked by someone else and while I'm sure Carson & his team suspected as much they were happy to run with it. Now that it has emerged as being a completely fictitious document they need to row back on it to at least try and save some face. The whole "I knew Hunter Biden and he was a good guy. He had his demons and we shouldn't pile on him when he's at a personal low" is an awful attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground to distract from their embarrassment. Unsurprisingly its working well with his audience.

More needs to be made of this, and I trust it will, in time. It's repulsive. He lost his mother and sister when he was a child. He lost his brother when he was a young adult. The man has drug issues, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Stressful events are a huge risk for him, relapse and suicide being the two main concerns. And yet the republican smear campaign are dragging him through the mud with utterly fabricated imputations. I hope and trust that he has people around him to help him through this. Politics is a dirty game, but I have never seen it get this dirty.

[Deleted User]

I think if the Democrats get both houses of congress and the Presidency then they should make radical reforms to the entire government. The US constitution is no longer fit for purpose, electoral representation is broken in favour of a conservative super minority.

I think they should tear the entire house down and becomes the country they could be as opposed to the broken one they are.

molloyjh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think if the Democrats get both houses of congress and the Presidency then they should make radical reforms to the entire government. The US constitution is no longer fit for purpose, electoral representation is broken in favour of a conservative super minority.

I think they should tear the entire house down and becomes the country they could be as opposed to the broken one they are.

The Democrats have played their part in making the States the way it is. I really don't think there's any point looking for them to fix things. This isnt a good guy vs bad guy tale. The Republicans have gone off the deep end in the last decade or so, but certainly until then they were 2 sides of the same coin...