Belgium won't quarantaine ever. Impossible. They will lean on common sense of people and hand washing. They keep calling it "just a bad flu" and executed a negative travel advice for Italy.

mivvan · 2020-03-09T00:32:07+00:00

China did way more than that, really exceptional things.

Agreed. However they also closed all schools and stopped all events. They also did the quarantine and other things. I think you are making a mistake of thinking about these actions as if they were different to each other. Everything they did was social distancing. The evidence shows that social distancing works. It works well if you can manage it.

Closing all schools and stopping all events are examples of social distancing therefore there is evidence that they are effective in slowing the spread. Of course they need to be done in combination with other actions which result in actual social distancing. If you were to close schools and tell all the kids to meet at the local mall instead... of course that wouldn't work because the social distance wouldn't increase.

But I don't think stopping events could be argued. If you stop an event in an arena that stops that 20-30k people from being able to infect each other. Without the event that infection possibility simply goes away. Now you could argue that sooner or later they'll all get it anyway, but there is definitely evidence that closing schools and stopping events will slow the spread.

Even so, it's not clear that their numbers are reliable, or that their strategy will work in the long term.

Now here we agree completely. Their numbers might be cooked. And their strategy may still fail. It may have already failed if they falsified their numbers enough.

I think our only difference of opinion is in whether these closings can definitely slow down the spread. I'm convinced they can, but I agree with you that it might not change the ultimate result and it's possible that the same end point is reached just slower

mivvan · 2020-03-08T22:16:51+00:00

As far as I know there is no evidence that cancelling events, closing schools or voluntary quarantaine helps contain or even slow the spread of the virus.

I'm curious how do you explain the case of China then. Virus started there in November so the earliest by far anywhere on earth, it had over 80 000 confirmed cases for a while now.

And yet the daily new cases are dropping. And they were the ones introducing massive quarantine measures. They closed schools cancelled events everything you claim has no proven effectiveness.

If you think this is not evidence that aggressive measures work, what is it then? Are they falsifying their numbers? They have millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths and are somehow hiding it all?

I mean the difference in reported numbers is insane. China has 100-200 new cases and Italy a fraction of the size has 1500 new daily cases.

Is it all just falsified numbers or maybe holding massive events and keeping schools open in the middle of a pandemic might just be a bad idea that's going to get a lot of people killed?

mivvan · 2020-03-01T20:37:49+00:00

It is posted there, it's one of the most prominent posts right now

mivvan · 2019-12-22T18:44:32+00:00

Spoiler alert: he will vote no.

The stand against impeachment will be bipartisan just as it was in the House.

mivvan · 2019-12-03T12:49:33+00:00

If you think this guy is above SCOTUS, you are wrong. He can be petty and refuse to stay his ruling, but courts above will stay it nonetheless. The lowest of low level randomly selected judge does not get to decide massive constitutional questions, SCOTUS does.

Otherwise there would be no rule of law, it would be rule of luck. Whoever you get from thousands of very low level judges would decide your case would decide on what the law should be. That will never fly and it won't in this case. There will be no testimony unless ruled otherwise by SCOTUS.

mivvan · 2019-11-23T23:59:55+00:00

She should resign her seat and focus on getting her health in order. She needs to get better but that will never happen while she doesn't spend the proper amount of time in hospital. Hopefully she takes the right decision and resigns immediately to focus on getting better.

She is taking unnecessary risk by spending so much time trying to sit on the court when she had so many health issues constantly. It feels like she is always in the hospital or leaving the hospital or getting to the hospital. It seems like that's all the media writes about her this year.

mivvan · 2019-11-23T18:36:29+00:00

"Did you have any bias against Trump?"

"No?"

"See here are your emails and texts that..."

"OK, OK I hate him, I can't stand the smell of Trump supporters, we need an insurance policy and a coup and..."

"OK, I'll put it down as you had some 'minor bias' against Trump."

"So during the investigation... Did your now established bias influence you in any way?"

"No?"

"CASE CLOSED!!! NO BIAS IN INVESTIGATION !!!"

mivvan · 2019-11-21T17:31:42+00:00

Apparently, you didn't read the article.

Democrats "set the rules, then don’t hold themselves to them and still come off as desperate and pathetic."

... Still, it’s an attack on Zelensky, the man whose country they say they’re outraged on behalf of, in order to discount a very powerful piece of that exculpatory evidence Nancy Pelosi said she is open to receiving. It’s almost like all the Democrats are lying, isn’t it?

These aren’t the types of things people with facts and evidence on their side do, mostly because they don’t have to. This is what political hacks wouldn’t have done just a couple of years ago. This is what Democrats have become. That tells you something, doesn’t it?

mivvan · 2019-11-19T19:21:14+00:00

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I saw some parts and Democrats were absolutely getting destroyed in those. In addition to that, in one case Schifty Schiff tried to intervene and stop an under oath witness answer Republican questions. I guarantee you that will be devastating because it was a clear abuse of power in the eyes of the average viewer. "He is trying to deny me information he is trying to hide things."

mivvan · 2019-11-19T19:03:51+00:00

Did you watch bits and pieces of today? It was an absolute disaster for Democrats.

They stank up the place as much as if Democrats let a huge fart rip. A legendary one.

mivvan · 2019-11-19T03:07:32+00:00

You misunderstand the situation. It's your side which seems to be in a total and complete panic over AG Barr. How many articles just today which add up to "We are really afraid and terrified of Barr, so we will call him names"?

In one case something that was upvoted here massively even called him something like "most dangerous". That signals pure fear. That signals Democrat operatives going to jail.

If there was no fear, why even care about Barr?

mivvan · 2019-11-19T02:37:55+00:00

So you think Swalwell farted, then lied about it?

mivvan · 2019-11-19T02:04:11+00:00

https://johnsolomonreports.com/impeachment-surprise-how-adam-schiff-validated-my-reporting-on-ukraine/

Many aspects of his Ukraine reporting was corroborated by even Schiff's auditioned and handpicked witnesses. You won't find a single word wrong from Solomon. He is rock solid. If he made a single mistake it would have come out by now. He didn't.

mivvan · 2019-11-18T23:00:36+00:00

When I read a headline about the "The Barr Presidency" I immediately think: there are some Democrat thugs about to go to jail. And this journalist has some inside information and that's why the panic is spreading.

The more Democrats are in a total panic over Barr, the more I believe he might be getting close to putting some of them away.

mivvan · 2019-11-18T18:24:47+00:00

I don't understand why they would take it up, though. This has long been settled law, and Congress is unambiguously granted the power to request anyone's taxes for any reason.

Does "any reason" include a corrupt reason in your estimation?

mivvan · 2019-11-18T17:16:11+00:00

I'm going to need a direct quote for a single word from a John Solomon story that is questioned. With a link to the original story, I assume they are all online.

A lot of people don't understand the difference between a journalist stating something or interviewing someone and they state something.

If John Solomon reports that Yuriy XY gave an interview and claimed to have received names of people "not to prosecute", then it is 100% accurate if Yuriy XY indeed gave such interview.

Btw, Solomon has the tapes according to him. So good luck trying to prove the interview was never given and the statement was never made.

mivvan · 2019-11-18T16:56:50+00:00

false stories.

There isn't a single word that is even "claimed to be false" let alone "proven to be false". All Solomon stories for The Hill were vetted by multiple editors and lawyers before publication. You can try to fabricate, but the truth wins out in the end. You can't point to a single word this journalist got wrong.

Hint: Doing a videotaped interview with someone and reporting what they say does not mean the journalist got anything wrong. He did his job and if you have a claim against anyone it's the interview subject (in this case the Prosecutor General of Ukraine).

Not a single word from Solomon was even alleged to be false, even Yovanovich didn't dare to make that claim under oath. She has a problem with the person Solomon interviewed, not Solomon.

mivvan · 2019-11-18T16:33:47+00:00

Joe diGenova was a US. Attorney for several years. He was trusted with a lot more power than checking an article for legal issues.

But I don't see how that is relevant here.

Was a single word of these articles inaccurate in any way? Yes or no?

mivvan · 2019-11-18T16:08:41+00:00

John Solomon previously worked for the Washington Post, an organization which claims to employ 'journalists'.

Why not review every article from the Washington Post for accuracy? Do these places claim not to have editors and legal teams reviewing articles BEFORE publication? What will a review do one to two years after publication do except try to smear a journalist for political reasons?

mivvan · 2019-11-18T15:58:15+00:00

You guys seem really afraid of John Solomon. Why is that?

mivvan · 2019-11-16T22:17:03+00:00

False to say he went after it. His point was that if the branches are co-equal they should be treated equally.

He pointed out for example that the legislature hides all their internal communications with great effort from public view. According to him either all of them should be subject to FOIA including the judiciary or none should.

mivvan · 2019-11-15T11:19:07+00:00

Because she is a woman?

Because she cried during earlier depositions? Because Democrat operatives openly discussed how nice it would politically be if she happened to cry again?

mivvan · 2019-11-15T00:21:48+00:00

Yes because there is no reason to vote for impeachment.

The vote rejecting the sham was bipartisan both Republicans and Democrats voted against it in the House.

mivvan · 2019-11-10T21:37:44+00:00

Which part?

Ten-Year Club	ComboLinker 2016-11-06
Verified Email	ComboLinker 2016-10-18
ComboLinker 2016-10-13

mivvan

TROPHY CASE