Bobref

Smart. If the referendum passes, he’ll have earned it many times over.

Of course we can. That’s the whole point. We’ve been protecting the whole population — one of the reasons the death rate is so far below some of the projections. The problem comes when you try to protect some of the population, while allowing the remainder to go unprotected and unfettered. If there’s any other way to actually accomplish that goal besides completely isolating the vulnerable population — and their caregivers — and their families/support systems — I have yet to hear it.

And just how do you protect the vulnerable population while essentially allowing the virus free rein in the population at large? I asked in an earlier post that began this thread: “You’re going to essentially cut a sizable segment of the population off from anyone else. You do realize that 1 in 7 Americans is over 65? Add to that the other vulnerable people, like poorly-controlled diabetics, those with auto-immune diseases, the immune-suppressed, those receiving chemotherapy (650,000 every year), and you’re talking well over 15% of the population, i.e., more than 50 million people. I would like to hear someone explain the “protective measures” for these 50 million people that will allow the other 275 million to just go about their business as if nothing had ever happened. Maybe we should just relocate all these people to a single geographic area where we can more easily protect them? You know, like concentration camps, but with internet and cable TV.“ Still waiting for an answer.

You would think if you were trying to restart a program, you’d want to encourage linkage to great tradition. Those Hammond High teams of the early 60s were as good as it gets in Indiana at the time.

To be honest, I thought it was funny ... but any deeper significance escapes me. Sorry, I’m reading this early in the morning.

Sounds like the intro to a @DT contraction argument.

= illogic

“My” logic? A statement is either logical or it isn’t. That one isn’t. My remark was not intended to comment on any political issue one way or another.

One of the great non sequiturs I’ve ever seen.

That’s what everyone says: “I’m sure there are ... things we can do.” As I said, the devil is in the details. Protecting the vulnerable, while allowing the less vulnerable to resume normality, is not a plan. It’s a goal. Now it’s time to come up with a plan to achieve that goal. So far, all I’ve heard is a lot of people pounding the table to get back to “normal.” I want to hear how we get there. How we deal with the elderly living in facilities. How we deal with people in high rise building elevators, in doctor’s offices, hospitals, clinics, etc,, in government offices and courthouses, on airplanes, etc. We all want to get “back.” What we disagree on is what we need to do going forward.

Sounds logical. Makes sense. But, of course, the devil is in the details. Just how is this going to happen? You’re going to essentially cut a sizable segment of the population off from anyone else. You do realize that 1 in 7 Americans is over 65? Add to that the other vulnerable people, like poorly-controlled diabetics, those with auto-immune diseases, the immune-suppressed, those receiving chemotherapy (650,000 every year), and you’re talking well over 15% of the population, i.e., more than 50 million people. I would like to hear someone explain the “protective measures” for these 50 million people that will allow the other 275 million to just go about their business as if nothing had ever happened. Maybe we should just relocate all these people to a single geographic area where we can more easily protect them? You know, like concentration camps, but with internet and cable TV. I’ve got news for you. Things have changed forever. We’re not “going back” to the way things were.There will be a “new normal,” and it’s going to include at least some of the protections that have been employed in the last 2 months. These various measures fall at different places along the most protective/least restrictive spectrum. The choices that are made in the next 6 months will determine what the “new normal” is.

It was only a matter of time before Biden stepped in it. The real issue is whether anyone who was offended by his totally tone deaf remark, and who would have voted for him, will now vote for Trump as a result. My guess is not very many. So, in that sense, Biden was right. He does own those votes.

OK, in retrospect it sucked at any price.

Thanks, doc. It’s so simple. Why didn’t all those experts think of that? 😷🤒🤧

I could use a little “lake life” right now. I had two Canadian fishing trips planned for this Summer, and have had to cancel both, as the border won’t be open until at least June 21.

I don’t think you can separate the two. It’s a unique situation, to which the judge fashioned a unique response.

I also note that Judge Sullivan was a Clinton appointee to the federal bench, for whatever that’s worth.

Keep in mind that this case is an entirely different type of proceeding than a normal prosecution because there was a special prosecutor, not Justice Department lawyers, who decided to charge Flynn. That could make all the difference in the Court of Appeals. It’ll be very interesting to see how it plays out. Edit: Upon further review, the Flynn prosecutors were DOJ attorneys, but they were not from the DC US Attorney’s office. They were appointed by the Attorney General. I think the questions regarding the district judge’s ability to take this sort of “activist” role is novel.

Interesting stats. What exactly is the point you’re trying to make by citing them?

And you wear your ban like a red badge of courage.😂

If you’re If you’re not a Warren Zevon fan, you won’t get it.

Either you’ve got the worst analytical skills of anyone on the GID, or you’re engaging in a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Fact is, I haven’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since I was in law school. I voted for the Libertarian candidate last time.

Yes, that is chicken-bleep.

I have criticized your style more than once ... and I’m not anyone’s example of a “lefty.”