badgerx16

So when a religious leader / influencer says that vaccination is a CIA plot it isn't being 'forced' on his followers ? When Trump, as the "Leader of the Free World", says that bleach is a "cure" for CoViD, everybody is expected to question and double-check what he is saying ? People exploit positions of influence. Just look at the number of senior Republican legislators who follow, support, and promote Q-Anon.

If only Redmond showed more willingness to do so.

Cheers Crabby, and best wishes to you and yours.

Chaos

They give the impression that they are working strictly off a script, they certainly don't come across as understanding health matters, and the IT is at best flakey. If this is what it is like now, how bad was it when first launched ?

When the second call came in, as I was talking to the first, the second caller asked me to check with the first whether that call ( the first ) was the 7-day check, and the first caller said it was, so the second one then said that that was also her purpose and signed off.

Do you think Carrie had her Princess Diana "There are 3 of us in this marriage" moment ?

But why 2 calls for the same reason, from different people at the same time ? Apart from that, they are continually giving the wrong guidance - as a positive test, I have to isolate for 10 days from the first symptom, but every caller tells me it's 14 days, which is the guideline for potential 'contact's, and when I questioned what they were saying, they admitted it is 10 days. When they called my son a couple of days ago, he was also a positive test rather than a potential 'contact', they told him 14 days, and when he tried to correct the caller it was escalated as his being uncooperative; 15 minutes later the caller got back in contact to say that he had referred it up to his supervisor and she had had to double check to find out what the rules are.

Aintree Iron

There's only been 1 fraud in this election, and he's the incumbent.

2 "7 day check" calls to me today, on different phones, at the same time. If that isn't target chasing, I don't know what is.

This is from CNN's coverage of the comings and goings at No10; "It also led to some No 10 staff wondering if this indicates a broader loosening of the Vote Leave grip on Johnson. "I think something bigger is going on with the EU deal," said one Downing Street insider, referencing the ongoing Brexit negotiations which are approaching their end. The insider suggested a concession from London might be on the cards. The UK government is still locked in talks with Brussels with less than two months before the scheduled conclusion of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020. As things stand on Brexit, a concession from London would be the simplest route to a breakthrough that would lead to a deal."

The Deputy Director of CISA was fired yesterday, the Director expects to go this weekend.

I think there may be quite a few constitutional lawyers looking to pad out their bank balances in the next couple of weeks.

( Reading further ) Even then, this only applies if both Houses of Congress, deciding separately, cannot agree on which voting certificate to accept. Currently, with the Democrats running the lower house and the Republicans the upper, this is unlikely to happen, should we get that far. ( Try to pick the bones out of this... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 )

From what I have read it is the State Legislature that decides. eg https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/11/the-completely-insane-electoral-college-strategy-436156 EDIT: In theory there could be 2 certified submissions to Washington, 1 from the State Legislature, another from the Governor, giving different EC votes. In this case, it is thought that the Federal process has to accept the certificate signed off by the Governor. You would think there would be an easier way of making a binary decision.

Nirvana

It does seem to be very convoluted process. What would happen within Pennsylvania, for instance, if the State Government ended up instructing their 20 Electors to vote for Trump, because a popular vote win for Biden had not been signed off ? Thanks for the good wishes.

Technically the Electors can vote for anybody, regardless of their specific State's popular vote totals. These are called 'faithless electors', and some states have made it a criminal offence. In the last election, Hillary Clinton lost 5 such electors, ( 1 voted for Bernie Sanders, 3 for Colin Powell, and 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle ), Trump lost 2, ( 1 to John Kasich, 1 to Ron Paul ). These switches were not enough to alter the actual result. ( Of 3 other Clinton electors who attempted to be 'faithless', 1 eventually relented, and the other 2 were replaced by electors who cast their vote for HC ). There is a theory that the legal challenges are actually a delaying tactic to ensure that states are unable to certify their results by the 'Safe Harbor' deadline of Dec 8th, 6 days before the EC votes are cast. It is possible that in such instances the respective State Governments will instruct the electors, ( Michigan and Pennsylvania are controlled by the Republicans ). If enough mischief is caused the election might even be defaulted to the 2 Houses to elect the President.

It isn't a matter of data privacy; Mr Badger of a particular address and mobile phone number tests positive, as does Mrs Badger of the same address, but with her own phone number. In filling out the online forms as directed and required, they each name the other, giving the same address and specific phone numbers. A simple cross reference against information already supplied should be able to identify that Mr Badger of that address and phone number, details supplied by me, is the same Mr Badger / address / phone number as given by Mrs Badger. Particularly as they were both tested at the same test centre, at the same time, in the same car ( the registration was recorded ).

How difficult do you think it is to correlate information to reduce duplication or waste of effort ? We have 3 people in our household, all with the same surname, and all with positive tests. We are all following the guidelines, and are isolating for the prescribed 10 days from the onset of symptoms. However, having filled in the Track and Trace questionaire, we are each receiving calls informing us that we are possible contacts of somebody who has tested positive, and should follow the 14 day precautionary isolation.

You could have just put him on ignore. 😉

toddy