Ranvier

Vice president doing it wouldn't be but once he kills the president, he is automatically president per the 25th amendment. Then he just pardons himself. Bam, criminally immune. And pardon power is in article 2, can't be questioned, automatically an official act with presumptive immunity.

This supreme court ruling is so dumb.

Using the 25th amendment to remove a living president would require cooperation of the cabinet and congress (if Trump contests the removal).

It's already happening

The Labor Party boycotted the vote and its members were not in attendance. The Arab parties voted against the measure.

Some more important context for people.

Yeah, I get the joke, but this map does not show what people are implying it does, if grindr is even down at all.

No, a population heat map means it's darker over the cities. There's more reports in Chicago than say, middle of nowhere Montana because there are more people there to report. This map is reporting the locations people are when they report it is down. And the circles get bigger and darker the more reports from that area. So if it was down everywhere, you would see the biggest circles over the biggest cities, and smaller circles in smaller cities, just like in this map. You see NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Fran have the biggest ones, and then smaller cities like Minneapolis have smaller ones.

Uh, that just looks like a population heat map, and Chicago would blend in with Milwaukee on this.

I get the joke, but it looks like it's just having problems everywhere.

Very broad you're right, here's the cdc info on it:

https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/underlying-conditions.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/underlyingconditions.html

Age alone is enough to qualify.

You don't need to be hospitalized to get all the antivirals. In fact, that's the whole thing paxlovid is supposed to prevent. Anyone with risk factors can take paxlovid, and it's very effective at preventing severe covid. It should be started as soon as possible, not waiting until someone's already hospitalized. Even in unvaccinated people, if taken early in the course, is 90% effective at preventing severe disease.

Remdesivir is the one that's generally only for hospitalized patients, though even that can be used pre hospital too.

Anyways point is, if you get covid, and have risk factors for severe covid, call your doctor or urgent care to get paxlovid to take if you can, especially if you're unvaccinated.

And yeah between getting diagnosed quickly, getting paxlovid I'm sure, and being immunized, Biden will very likely be fine.

Edit: yes he started paxlovid https://www.npr.org/2024/07/17/nx-s1-5043814/biden-covid

Talking about it won't make it happen. But political action can't happen if it's not talked about! We're again at this impasse where according to your view point, no one is allowed to stake out a political position unless there's already a certainty for it to pass. How is anyone supposed to build consensus and improve support for something like that? More people from any party, whether that's democrat republican independent or a third party, supporting your position is a good thing and makes it more likely to happen. Running on a platform and popularizing it is political action. And "republicans don't like it" is generally the obstacle when you're talking about democrats passing a law yeah. Because they get elected to congress too and can vote against it (or worse the president). I'm not claiming every democrat supports it, obviously that is not the case. But getting more and more people to adopt the position is how you get to the political action. Politicians staking out a position and then people voting for the ones whose position matches your own is how this whole thing works.

Yes, that's true. The poll averages themselves haven't moved much either though. And the reliance on the fundamentals forecast has me nervous, but they definitely do it for a reason. When they developed the models and looked at poll history the pattern they found was the fundamentals had a big influence on what the polls would look like closer to the election and the eventual result. Polls closer to the election are more predictive than the fundamentals. Polls farther away from the election less so. There's at least some reason to think things have changed enough maybe the fundamentals aren't as fundamental for this race, but I guess we won't know until afterward.

Yes and Medicare, Medicaid, the children's health insurance program (chip), the affordable care act, all passed by Democrats. And there's now three states with their own public option, all passed by Democrats.

I don't understand why you don't want politicians talking about things you support more. I wish the public option and Medicare for all were brought up even more. Talking about it less doesn't make it more likely to happen, even if you're not sure if the votes will be there to do it I the next cycle. If politicians who support Medicare for all keep doing well in elections, other politicians will see that and adopt that position too Then hey maybe enough someday will finally get elected they can get it all passed together. Politicians love passing stuff, it makes them more likely to be re elected. FDR didn't get re elected four times by doing nothing.

Okay, so if the goal isn't accomplished in 4 years, politicians are no longer able to mention it again, got it.

And he can't do either of these things congress would be require for both. Neither are promises.

I don't think Sanders and AOC would be pushing so hard for Biden to stay the candidate if they didn't think he was the best way to get policies they approve of in action.