GaryPinC

Cool, going to start a thread for it.

I'd appreciate it if you post which one she gets and how the side effects are. TIA.

You're clearly bringing your own hatred, way to assume hatred in this response. Focus on what you can control and maybe others will follow suit. The people who moved "over there" used to mock leftists for their safe spaces and need for bubbles to deny reality. Now they've become the right wing version of exactly that. Go ahead and glorify it.

Um, no. That'd be Steelers fans.

Now there is this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. It sounds to me it's not just an action, but it has to actually effect, in this case, the investigation. Good luck with that. And simply conspiring to commit a crime is not a crime.

And I am certainly not well versed in law. But could you tell me who the other conspirators are and what provable actions they actually committed? Also, given per Mueller, obstruction of the investigation was never committed, so will whatever Trump et al. might get proven guilty of be a substantial enough sentence to make the effort worthwhile?

No. Trump talked about robbing a bank. It appears he may have been engaged in some activities to support a plan to rob the bank but in the end the bank itself said they were never robbed. I understand it appears different to me than you, but at the end of the day do you really believe it's worth the time, money, and effort to try and prove beyond a doubt Trump subjectively crossed a line and committed a crime? Honestly after all the money and effort spent on the report, suspicion of or attempted obstruction was the best they could do to appease the left and show some kind of result. I get that Trump is a slime ball but let SDNY take him out, it's the best chance. Stop wasting the nation's time trying to split hairs on him.

Just highlighting the important words that show you this was subjective opinion and nothing substantiative. IIRC, at least once of these incidents was him spouting off to Tillerson, who shot him down and that was the end of it. Just frustrated bluster. Also I believe in testimony Mueller stated that the investigation was never obstructed that he knew of. The left should follow Biden's wisdom and let Trump go on this subject. People here want the right to be open to changing their opinion, then they drag this Mueller report up? Other than Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer over potential Hillary dirt there was nothing there. And totally disingenuous and subjective to cry about it given the Steele dossier and it's role in the FISA violations. Every American should be deeply concerned about the abuse of the FISA system here.

I'm not sure you do. Maybe it's just differing perspective. I follow how Shoshin uses it and it seems correct. All of Trump's bluster of fraud in all these states, Soros, South Americans, scores of witnesses, etc. That's one theory, the other is that Trump simply lost the election fair and square. Occam's razor would favor theory 2. How is this incorrect?

Not sure if this was discussed previously, but there's a recent press release that Dr. Zev's HCQ data has been published in a journal. Thought I'd post to discuss. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258?fbclid=IwAR2ThVW8heoWpjCJNALqNZOklRcDarS9csetteKE_jpT8U0l3-SH6IeJDHg In short, this data is essentially worthless. The biggest problem is his control group, which he got from some public index that only reveals hospitalization and outcome. There are no age or co-morbidities to compare with the treated groups, and that's a death blow. He also has a large percentage of treatment patients under 60 and even the cohort over 60 the median age is 67. Treatment group #s 141, control 377. Thing is, I think as a physician he could have applied and got access to the control patient data so he could have age matched and stratified with the treatment groups. I doubt that oversight is accidental. I'm pretty confident of this but need to check with the physicians I work with. Not familiar with viral journals but I imagine the publisher is a third rate journal that will enjoy the attention Dr. Zev's article brings.

I don't think the option goes far enough as inbounding is a significant risk. You'd have to give them both. But also, it's now up to the judgement of the ref and that opens its own can of worms. My thought is to change the rules to limit calling timeouts in the last 2 minutes. And limit substitutions also. That's the thing that really kills me, it seems like 6 or more timeouts always get called.

I don't, but I don't understand why you think he might be completely lying about it? He did answer to it in general terms which covers for Morse. I think if the injury history would have played into it, he could say coach's decision just to be sure he's over concussion and IMO would have been less controversial while still covering for Morse. But it is my opinion that IF Morse is our clear #1 center, you get him up to speed for the Cards and hope the momentum carries through. I mean, coaches' attitude could have been "things just turned around for this O-line, wait till we plug Mitch back in and get Mongo back to guard vs the Cards!" but it wasn't. Something seems up. We'll see Sunday.

If the play of the offensive line fell off when Morse went out, or if Mongo and Allen had trouble with their snaps, Morse would have started against the Cards. But McD felt momentum improved with Morse out and he stuck with it. We'll see what happens Sunday, Morse has had the bye week to work back in.

This is what McD said:. "we felt like we had at least some momentum with the group we had had in when Mitch went down and wanted to take a look at one more week there." Why is this not clear to you? After Morse went down the unit started playing better, gaining momentum.

No I did not. I said the O-line as a unit performed better with him out, according to McD. It's not the same thing. Him and Feliciano each bring something different to the table.

Except you added the suggestion it was because Morse was coming off a concussion, the second in a year and a half. Simply put, that did not appear to be part of this decision.

https://espnrochester.radio.com/articles/wgr-am-article/mcdermott-morse-not-playing-was-a-coachs-decision "He was healthy," McDermott told reporters on his weekly Zoom conference call. "Mitch is a good player and we just felt like, for that week, that week being last week, we felt like we had at least some momentum with the group we had had in when Mitch went down and wanted to take a look at one more week there." You're entitled to your opinion, but this is what McD said. Just because we lost doesn't mean O-line momentum was broken. You're talking assignment adjustments, getting off the ball and being effective as a unit. They saw things on film they liked and kept with it against the Cards. To me, the fact McD is noncommittal about Morse starting this weekend tells me he probably won't. I'm sure they put a lot of work in to try and fix their run game and I just think McD would tag Morse as starter again if it had worked out. I don't think he would be coy about who's starting at center, because at worst there seemed no noticeable dropoff with Mongo in there.

My interpretation of McDermott's explanation is that the O-line is doing better without Morse in there and he wants to stick with that group as developing continuity is critical to O-line effectiveness. I'm not expecting Morse back in unless the tape of the Cardinals game looks bad.

I think Trump leaving office is a big key to settling the country down as he was purposely divisive and the MSM also helped stoke that. Once gone, it'll become apparent that while he wanted to drain the swamp, he lives in his own swamp which he would have installed. Enough of us middle folk and a number of right folks I talked to realize his communication style is toxic, his nepotism and constant hirings/firings just point to his host of other problems that will make him unfit. He was just a better option than Hillary, nothing more. Trump is toast, I guess we'll see if they actually run Ivanka but I would view her just like Hillary when she became a senator for no real reason other than her husband.

I'm not sure I'd agree you're being objective with "barely" at number 9. "Barely" objectively implies that there's a large chance of him falling out of the top 10 at any moment. Are 10 and 11 so statistically close to him that you feel this is true? Totally on board with everything else you said, great post. It drives me crazy that our O-line can pass block pretty well but really hasn't done well run blocking. If they can fix this out of the bye, I would feel a lot better about our playoff chances.

Well, you don't have to be a lawyer to appreciate the role of the supreme court. They are not going to be able to present witnesses in their case to the SC. That is not the role of the SC. I think Rudy's just being loyal to Trump. Trump would have to be oblivious and that's a real possibility.

I'm in agreement on you with 1 and 2. But why would you assume Trump is some purveyor of truth and honesty because of it? He wasn't the most honest guy pre presidency. 3 is not odd given Trump's efforts on climate change, the environment, his rudeness, perceived dishonesty, use of conspiracy theories, and overt targeting and demonization of democrats as a whole. 4. Mail in ballots are not new. The push is for a convenient way to ensure people vote. No waiting in line. I see much more waiting in line in the urban areas over my suburban or even rural areas so that may be a factor. I am in agreement with you about proper ID as the law requires. Funny how Trump is not willing to put his massive evidence of voter fraud on the table or in the courtroom for that matter...

Check Rudy on Trump's ultimate strategy to overturn the election. Anyone Trump supporter who believes in this is the pinnacle of gullible. I know Rudy, as a lawyer, knows better.

You know what gullible is? Believing that getting even one of these various cases to the Supreme court while presenting no evidence along the way is a sound strategy.

There's very little investigative journalism needed for documented court results: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/with-scathing-order-judge-dismisses-trump-effort-to-block-pennsylvania-vote-certification/ar-BB1bfqeI?li=BBnbfcL Keep in mind Brann is a repub judge. Now Trump is trying to persuade repub state lawmakers to intervene, disregard the vote and send repub electors instead! Honestly, JaCrispy, does this make any sense for a president who likes to preach "rule of law"? It's extremely subversive IMO. There's been a lot of hot air with no significant legal evidence presented by his team as needed in these courtrooms. Yes the MSM has shamefully advocated against Trump but the courtroom results and Trump's subversive tactics speak for themselves. Look at the judges words in all these states, Trump's argument's present no evidence and thus have no legal grounds. Over and over. At what point do Trump supporters get off their knees and stop taking it in the face from him and his campaign?