Need Moar Capacity
The most infectious and dangerous people are those on the front line
ISOLATE THEM!!!!
LA County has 6600 or so people die very month. 73 is nothing, especially since this is largely misclassification.
sauce (of sorts)
Calling AZ early. :X
That's a World Economic Forum FAVORITE!!!
Good Paper
While the standing doctrine is one of the most widely theorized and criticized doctrines in U.S. law, its origins remain controversial. One revisionist view argues that New Deal progressive Justices purposely invented the standing doctrine to insulate administrative agencies from judicial review. Yet existing support for this “insulation thesis” is weak. Our Article provides the first systematic empirical evidence of the historical evolution of standing. We synthesize the theory and claims underlying the insulation thesis and compile a new database of every standing issue decided, along with all contested merits votes, by the Supreme Court from 1921-2006. To overcome conventional problems of haphazard case selection, we amass, read, and classify over 1500 cases cited in historical treatments of the doctrine, assembling a database of all standing issues contested. With modern statistical methods and this new dataset—comprised of 47,570 votes for 5497 unique issues and 229 standing issues —we find compelling evidence for one version of the insulation thesis. Before 1940, progressive Justices disproportionately deny standing to plaintiffs in cases that largely involve challenges to administrative agencies. After 1940, the political valence of the standing doctrine reverses: progressives uniformly favor standing. Justices Douglas and Black, in particular, track this evolution (and valence reversal) of the standing doctrine. While the evidence for liberal insulation is strong, the historical period of unanimously decided standing cases prior to the period of insulation does not support liberal invention per se. Our results challenge legal inquiries of what claims are traditionally amenable to judicial resolution and highlight the unintended consequences of judicial innovation.
https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/stand.pdf
TLDR
If they don't want to hear it, no standing. If they do want to hear it, like extending "standing" to terrorists in other countries to US courts, then they give it.
And send link for part 2, in case they don't see it as a reply to the first.
The videos are good, Mentions Parler as an alt, it that is a preference.
Part 2, 8 Minutes
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1341948764068704256
Can we go back to Light mode without putting in an email address? I have no em attached to account and the Save button insists.
ETA: Nevermind, found it, there are several Save buttons and I can change and save just the settings desired.
Yes and who ARE those officials? Just junk words.
They have certifications of election winners in their state and have provided electors.
Both true!
Yes and before January 6
It doesn't exist.
Fact check - not sure, but check Massachusetts and other NE states for exceptions
Total votes hugely increased!
Look at those precintcs where Trump would up with 500 or 700 after recount, originally those precincts had give 500/700 to Biden, omg!
Total votes went up nearly 8000! And Trump wins too!
Eta - they had not just moved some Trump votes to Biden they had suppressed (not counted) Trump votes!!!
They probably stole some from Jorgenson and had given them to Biden too.
Good catch. She's been a snake a long time.
He should start building gallows all along the National Mall.
Victimhood is their livelihood.
Love it.
This story (below) was BEFORE the election
https://thedonald.win/p/11Pox7RdtB/urgent-general-mcinerney-warns-d/c/
URGENT!! General McInerney warns Democrats are using software program to FLIP 3% of the votes to STEAL the election! Sidney Powell says they intend to STOP it!
"this kind of work"
..telling
Ah yes, dial it down to 1% sensitivity, so 99% error in match "passes."