You know what guys? This is fucking encouraging. Thinking back to 10 years ago, I could name maybe one senator, two at the most, who would have signed off on this.
Chins up and stiff upper lip.
Hypothetically:
Pence opens the alternative electoral votes first, reads them out as votes for Trump and dares Congress to object to them. Now what? ;)
What IS the legal process for making it "officially contested"? I don't know; given the lack of precedent, I suspect, nobody does.
Since everyone has to play by ear here, the more noise we make, the more "officially contested" it becomes.
What is "officially"? We are in uncharted territory; precedent is old and limited.
It is as "officially contested" as we make it to be.
Black powder revolvers are not legally firearms. Just saying.
shows the cop addressing the actor in front of a building before he punched him in the face Tuesday.
Who punched whom? Journalism these days...
I will never believe that.
...he does not have any.
If the election was done fairly, why such resistance to audit?
Keeping fingers crossed!
That's what alternate electors are for.
Dunno about certified. Certifiable, sure.
Yeah, didn't make myself clear enough. Thanks!
It does not. Runoffs are happening in GA, EO or not. However, I am confident that if that EO goes down before the runoffs, federal assistance will be provided to assure free and fair elections.
You're welcome!
Good precedent for it from the civil rights era.
Although I have no doubt that Trump team has already thought of that. Case of beer says that if a certain EO is activated, runoffs will be conducted under Federal supervision.
The protocols shown specify qPCR. Then again, the only difference between PCR and qPCR is that in PCR you measure the amount of DNA at the end of the reaction (after, say, 25 cycles). In qPCR, you measure the amount of DNA after each cycle (that requires a much fancier machine). The consequence of those differences is that, by counting the number of cycles it takes to get to some threshold amount of DNA, and by comparing that number of cycles to threshold (CTT) to CTT for a known standard under the same conditions, you can estimate the amount of DNA of interest in the original sample.
As I commented earlier on this board, PCR (q or not) simply cannot work correctly at 45 cycles. Either your procedure is perfectly optimized and you are picking up medically insignificant amounts of viral RNA, or your procedure sucks and you are picking up false positives. All intermediate scenarios fall into the second category, because if you have to go 30+ cycles to threshold, then you have poorly optimized sample collection, or poorly optimized amplification. Or your threshold is set way too high.
Does this meme exist in English?
If you are old school, it can get confusing, because back in the days RT stood for "reverse transcription" or "real time", which are different things. These days, qPCR stands for "quantitative PCR", which is the same thing as the olden days "real time PCR".
These days they hunt for sniffles viral markers by RT-qPCR ("reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction"). Which means, viral RNA (colds are caused by RNA viruses) is reverse transcribed to cDNA (RT step), and then the amount of cDNA (which is expected to be proportional to the amount of viral RNA) evaluated by counting the number of cycles to threshold (qPCR step). Fewer cycles to threshold means more viral RNA in the original sample.
Hmmmm, I like his line of thinking. Step over my property line and become MINE! Dog food is expensive, you know.
By the looks of it, yes.
One word of warning, this looks like qPCR approach. It is not the number of cycles that counts, it is the number of cycles to threshold, whatever that threshold might be. If it is reached in 20-25 cycles, then yes, I am convinced it is real. Anything above 30 is probably false positive.
Not an unreasonable interpretation at all.
Powerful. Grass is unnecessary, though; makes one think of zombie movies.
Impossible. They have strict gun control in NYC.
As I mentioned elsewhere on this board, ten years ago I would have had tough time naming two committing to something like this. This is encouraging, actually.