Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

4/5 wrote:

wease wrote:

tommy wrote:Can someone who follows this shit tell me how likely these clown appointments are to make it through congress?

The Senate is the chamber of congress that approves cabinet nominations. The Senate will have the majority when the next term starts. Very few of them oppose anything Trump says, so it’s widely believed all his nominations will confirmed.

Trump is demanding that when it’s time to start the new term, they stay in recess so he can recess appoint all his cabinet nominees. This is when the POTUS can simply name his cabinet while the Senate is not in session.

Either way, he’s getting his picks thru.

This should probably be getting discussed more. What an absolutely wild demand.

I don't think AG is a position that falls under this rule, so he wouldn't be able to get in that way. But still a wild premise.

It’s a regular cabinet post as the AG is over the Dept of Justice, so why wouldn’t it fall under the same rule as all the rest?

Vince’s wife Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education. Of course.

spike wrote:Vince’s wife Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education. Of course.

Apparently they're separated, so the number of sexual predators in the white house stays the same.

Which positions will Putin and Xi Jinping get?

tommy wrote:

spike wrote:Vince’s wife Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education. Of course.

Apparently they're separated, so the number of sexual predators in the white house stays the same.

Women can be sexual predators.

B wrote:

tommy wrote:

spike wrote:Vince’s wife Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education. Of course.

Apparently they're separated, so the number of sexual predators in the white house stays the same.

Women can be sexual predators.

True, but I think Linda McMahon is more of a sexual predator enabling barnacle.

Like a shittier Hillary Clinton

spike wrote:Which positions will Putin and Xi Jinping get?

Master and fluffer

spike wrote:

Criticize him for what he actually said. “Total mortality” does not mean children.

you’re right he’s not a monster

As I said, criticize him. But don’t push lies.

so you believe no kids would not be part of that 2-3%?

imagine waking up and defending the likes of dr oz

is 'mojo' a medical term or is that like the rights version of 'vibes'?

Peeps wrote:so you believe no kids would not be part of that 2-3%?

imagine waking up and defending the likes of dr oz

Oz is terrible. Plenty of things to pick on him for, and if you want to say he was too cavalier in accepting more death, that's a reasonable critique, too. Or that he should have been more clear, also fair.

He was referring to a Lancet study that said at best closing schools might reduce mortality by 2-3%. That's not 2-3% of the population will or won't die, but that comparing the number of deaths that will happen regardless, closing schools could reduce that by only 2-3%.

Quick Google search and browsing CDC and NIH data, the mortality rate was a little over 1%. Tough to nail down a precise figure, but I found 1.15%.

The Lancet study he refers to suggests that if you close all schools you could get reduce that rate by 0.023-0.0345 (2-3% of 1.15%) to a mortality rate of 1.1155-1.127% instead of 1.15%.

That leaves us with a very different decision than if it was 2-3% of the population might live or die based on school closings.

And also a good reminder that 2% and 2 percentage points are not remotely the same thing. People love to manipulate others by letting them conflate that difference and it drives me crazy.

4/5 wrote:

Peeps wrote:so you believe no kids would not be part of that 2-3%?

imagine waking up and defending the likes of dr oz

Oz is terrible. Plenty of things to pick on him for, and if you want to say he was too cavalier in accepting more death, that's a reasonable critique, too. Or that he should have been more clear, also fair.

He was referring to a Lancet study that said at best closing schools might reduce mortality by 2-3%. That's not 2-3% of the population will or won't die, but that comparing the number of deaths that will happen regardless, closing schools could reduce that by only 2-3%.

Quick Google search and browsing CDC and NIH data, the mortality rate was a little over 1%. Tough to nail down a precise figure, but I found 1.15%.

The Lancet study he refers to suggests that if you close all schools you could get reduce that rate by 0.023-0.0345 (2-3% of 1.15%) to a mortality rate of 1.1155-1.127% instead of 1.15%.

That leaves us with a very different decision than if it was 2-3% of the population might live or die based on school closings.

And also a good reminder that 2% and 2 percentage points are not remotely the same thing. People love to manipulate others by letting them conflate that difference and it drives me crazy.

get the fuck outta here with your well reasoned fact finding

I might also point out that I've met a LOT of doctors, and never yet met one who claims to understand Medicare or Medicaid.
Does that make a hack like Oz more or less qualified to run it?

Gaetz withdraws

kind of surprised