[BostonCard]

Given that Trump’s greatest accomplishment of the pandemic is helping bring about a vaccine in record time, it strikes me as rather counterproductive to raise anti-vaccination concerns with it.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/shearm/status/1335756734263156737?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Given that Trump’s greatest accomplishment of the pandemic is helping bring about a vaccine in record time, it strikes me as rather counterproductive to raise anti-vaccination concerns with it.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/shearm/status/1335756734263156737?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[akiddoc]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

[akiddoc]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

[fullmetal]

I see this is what Senate Republicans think is the best use of their time as the economy/housing situation hurtles toward additional pain for millions of people.

[fullmetal]

I see this is what Senate Republicans think is the best use of their time as the economy/housing situation hurtles toward additional pain for millions of people.

[Genuine Realist]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

You should run for office, then.

The easiest problems to solve are someone else's.

---

I see this is what Senate Republicans think is the best use of their time as the economy/housing situation hurtles toward additional pain for millions of people.

This makes no political sense at all, since Trump (as noted) is taking some credit for the vaccine.

Maybe the idea is to expose the charade for what it is. But that does seem too subtle.

[Genuine Realist]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

You should run for office, then.

The easiest problems to solve are someone else's.

---

I see this is what Senate Republicans think is the best use of their time as the economy/housing situation hurtles toward additional pain for millions of people.

This makes no political sense at all, since Trump (as noted) is taking some credit for the vaccine.

Maybe the idea is to expose the charade for what it is. But that does seem too subtle.

[g1313]

I personally usually use the term anti-vaxxer to describe people who believe (despite overwhelming scientific evidence) that vaccines cause autism or other unfounded conspiracy theories. Does it also extend to people who who don't believe in mandatory vaccination?

[g1313]

I personally usually use the term anti-vaxxer to describe people who believe (despite overwhelming scientific evidence) that vaccines cause autism or other unfounded conspiracy theories. Does it also extend to people who who don't believe in mandatory vaccination?

[BostonCard]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

The morons in the White House seem to have taken the lead:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1336392393063600128?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

The morons in the White House seem to have taken the lead:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1336392393063600128?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[Genuine Realist]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

The morons in the White House seem to have taken the lead:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1336392393063600128?s=20[/tweet]

BC

There is no question that since the election Trump has justified almost every accusation of his most severe critics, the one exception being an out and out coup. 

The first wave of lawsuits were welcome and appropriate, since Covid made the election more than a little unusual. But even with these, the factual declarations were astonishingly inadequate. (I took the trouble to read them.) But rather than end there, there have been second and third rounds, the theories getting worse and worse, and the declarations more and more ridiculously inept. The time came to call a halt a week ago.

The latest try, to invalidate retroactively millions of votes cast in good faith and with no showing of fraud, on the grounds that the balloting schemes (entrusted by the Constitution to the various States) iare somehow Constitutionally defective, is both absurd and cynical. If there were a problem with these, you file the suit BEFORE the election, not after. 

 These have zero chance with the Supreme Court - and if cert were granted, I'd move from ultra-conservative on the issue of packing to favoring it. 

But Trump goes on, sowing conspiracy theories for future use. Absolutely disgraceful.

[Genuine Realist]

The morons in the White House are matched only by the morons in Congress.

The morons in the White House seem to have taken the lead:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1336392393063600128?s=20[/tweet]

BC

There is no question that since the election Trump has justified almost every accusation of his most severe critics, the one exception being an out and out coup. 

The first wave of lawsuits were welcome and appropriate, since Covid made the election more than a little unusual. But even with these, the factual declarations were astonishingly inadequate. (I took the trouble to read them.) But rather than end there, there have been second and third rounds, the theories getting worse and worse, and the declarations more and more ridiculously inept. The time came to call a halt a week ago.

The latest try, to invalidate retroactively millions of votes cast in good faith and with no showing of fraud, on the grounds that the balloting schemes (entrusted by the Constitution to the various States) iare somehow Constitutionally defective, is both absurd and cynical. If there were a problem with these, you file the suit BEFORE the election, not after. 

 These have zero chance with the Supreme Court - and if cert were granted, I'd move from ultra-conservative on the issue of packing to favoring it. 

But Trump goes on, sowing conspiracy theories for future use. Absolutely disgraceful.

[BostonCard]

There is no question that since the election Trump has justified almost every accusation of his most severe critics, the one exception being an out and out coup. 


The first wave of lawsuits were welcome and appropriate, since Covid made the election more than a little unusual. But even with these, the factual declarations were astonishingly inadequate. (I took the trouble to read them.) But rather than end there, there have been second and third rounds, the theories getting worse and worse, and the declarations more and more ridiculously inept. The time came to call a halt a week ago.



The latest try, to invalidate retroactively millions of votes cast in good faith and with no showing of fraud, on the grounds that the balloting schemes (entrusted by the Constitution to the various States) iare somehow Constitutionally defective, is both absurd and cynical. If there were a problem with these, you file the suit BEFORE the election, not after. 



 These have zero chance with the Supreme Court - and if cert were granted, I'd move from ultra-conservative on the issue of packing to favoring it. 



But Trump goes on, sowing conspiracy theories for future use. Absolutely disgraceful.

News just flashed that the USSC declined to review the PA case.  I assume they will decline all the other ones.  I agree with your analysis, though I would say that there was a large gap between what was alleged in press conferences and what was alleged under oath in court.  I worry about the reaction when the judiciary doesn't in the end find significant fraud whether that will further erode respect for institutions.  Already the Republican governor of Georgia has been turned on for (correctly) stating that he could not legally overturn the election.  Was the kracken that Jenna Ellis alleged she was unleashing meant to have been the court of public opinion?

BC

[BostonCard]

There is no question that since the election Trump has justified almost every accusation of his most severe critics, the one exception being an out and out coup. 


The first wave of lawsuits were welcome and appropriate, since Covid made the election more than a little unusual. But even with these, the factual declarations were astonishingly inadequate. (I took the trouble to read them.) But rather than end there, there have been second and third rounds, the theories getting worse and worse, and the declarations more and more ridiculously inept. The time came to call a halt a week ago.



The latest try, to invalidate retroactively millions of votes cast in good faith and with no showing of fraud, on the grounds that the balloting schemes (entrusted by the Constitution to the various States) iare somehow Constitutionally defective, is both absurd and cynical. If there were a problem with these, you file the suit BEFORE the election, not after. 



 These have zero chance with the Supreme Court - and if cert were granted, I'd move from ultra-conservative on the issue of packing to favoring it. 



But Trump goes on, sowing conspiracy theories for future use. Absolutely disgraceful.

News just flashed that the USSC declined to review the PA case.  I assume they will decline all the other ones.  I agree with your analysis, though I would say that there was a large gap between what was alleged in press conferences and what was alleged under oath in court.  I worry about the reaction when the judiciary doesn't in the end find significant fraud whether that will further erode respect for institutions.  Already the Republican governor of Georgia has been turned on for (correctly) stating that he could not legally overturn the election.  Was the kracken that Jenna Ellis alleged she was unleashing meant to have been the court of public opinion?

BC

[teejers1]

There is no question that since the election Trump has justified almost every accusation of his most severe critics, the one exception being an out and out coup. 


The first wave of lawsuits were welcome and appropriate, since Covid made the election more than a little unusual. But even with these, the factual declarations were astonishingly inadequate. (I took the trouble to read them.) But rather than end there, there have been second and third rounds, the theories getting worse and worse, and the declarations more and more ridiculously inept. The time came to call a halt a week ago.



The latest try, to invalidate retroactively millions of votes cast in good faith and with no showing of fraud, on the grounds that the balloting schemes (entrusted by the Constitution to the various States) iare somehow Constitutionally defective, is both absurd and cynical. If there were a problem with these, you file the suit BEFORE the election, not after. 



 These have zero chance with the Supreme Court - and if cert were granted, I'd move from ultra-conservative on the issue of packing to favoring it. 



But Trump goes on, sowing conspiracy theories for future use. Absolutely disgraceful.

News just flashed that the USSC declined to review the PA case.  I assume they will decline all the other ones.  I agree with your analysis, though I would say that there was a large gap between what was alleged in press conferences and what was alleged under oath in court.  I worry about the reaction when the judiciary doesn't in the end find significant fraud whether that will further erode respect for institutions.  Already the Republican governor of Georgia has been turned on for (correctly) stating that he could not legally overturn the election.  Was the kracken that Jenna Ellis alleged she was unleashing meant to have been the court of public opinion?

BC

The best way to punish an egomaniac is to ignore him.  That is what we all should do.  Let Trump whine and complain all he wants.  Honestly, who cares?  He has zero chance of overturning the election, and the longer he gripes about it, the more even his base will be turned off by him.  

Nobody likes a sore loser.

[teejers1]

There is no question that since the election Trump has justified almost every accusation of his most severe critics, the one exception being an out and out coup. 


The first wave of lawsuits were welcome and appropriate, since Covid made the election more than a little unusual. But even with these, the factual declarations were astonishingly inadequate. (I took the trouble to read them.) But rather than end there, there have been second and third rounds, the theories getting worse and worse, and the declarations more and more ridiculously inept. The time came to call a halt a week ago.



The latest try, to invalidate retroactively millions of votes cast in good faith and with no showing of fraud, on the grounds that the balloting schemes (entrusted by the Constitution to the various States) iare somehow Constitutionally defective, is both absurd and cynical. If there were a problem with these, you file the suit BEFORE the election, not after. 



 These have zero chance with the Supreme Court - and if cert were granted, I'd move from ultra-conservative on the issue of packing to favoring it. 



But Trump goes on, sowing conspiracy theories for future use. Absolutely disgraceful.

News just flashed that the USSC declined to review the PA case.  I assume they will decline all the other ones.  I agree with your analysis, though I would say that there was a large gap between what was alleged in press conferences and what was alleged under oath in court.  I worry about the reaction when the judiciary doesn't in the end find significant fraud whether that will further erode respect for institutions.  Already the Republican governor of Georgia has been turned on for (correctly) stating that he could not legally overturn the election.  Was the kracken that Jenna Ellis alleged she was unleashing meant to have been the court of public opinion?

BC

The best way to punish an egomaniac is to ignore him.  That is what we all should do.  Let Trump whine and complain all he wants.  Honestly, who cares?  He has zero chance of overturning the election, and the longer he gripes about it, the more even his base will be turned off by him.  

Nobody likes a sore loser.

[BostonCard]

Good points.  He is still the President, though, but on January 21, I hope I never have to utter the word "Trump" again.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good points.  He is still the President, though, but on January 21, I hope I never have to utter the word "Trump" again.

BC

[magnus]

Good points.  He is still the President, though, but on January 21, I hope I never have to utter the word "Trump" again.

Bridge is a good game.  Don't let one presidency ruin the game for you. =)

[magnus]

Good points.  He is still the President, though, but on January 21, I hope I never have to utter the word "Trump" again.

Bridge is a good game.  Don't let one presidency ruin the game for you. =)

[Goose]

Good points.  He is still the President, though, but on January 21, I hope I never have to utter the word "Trump" again.

Bridge is a good game.  Don't let one presidency ruin the game for you. =)

Indeed it is, but I think we all are bidding no Trump for a while.

[Goose]

Good points.  He is still the President, though, but on January 21, I hope I never have to utter the word "Trump" again.

Bridge is a good game.  Don't let one presidency ruin the game for you. =)

Indeed it is, but I think we all are bidding no Trump for a while.

[lex24]

This too shall pass.  Having said that, Jan 20 can’t get here fast enough.....

[lex24]

This too shall pass.  Having said that, Jan 20 can’t get here fast enough.....

[thatboy]

I personally usually use the term anti-vaxxer to describe people who believe (despite overwhelming scientific evidence) that vaccines cause autism or other unfounded conspiracy theories. Does it also extend to people who who don't believe in mandatory vaccination?

Your post reminded me of something I saw on social media earlier:

The same people that say a 0.9% death rate from COVID-19 is 'no big deal' are the ones saying we can't risk rare adverse events from a vaccination that occur at a rate of 0.005% and are non life-threatening.

[thatboy]

I personally usually use the term anti-vaxxer to describe people who believe (despite overwhelming scientific evidence) that vaccines cause autism or other unfounded conspiracy theories. Does it also extend to people who who don't believe in mandatory vaccination?

Your post reminded me of something I saw on social media earlier:

The same people that say a 0.9% death rate from COVID-19 is 'no big deal' are the ones saying we can't risk rare adverse events from a vaccination that occur at a rate of 0.005% and are non life-threatening.