November 24, 2020

Wendy Bell, Yesterday. Still Unhinged From Reality

Wendy Bell continued with another ranting living room live broadcasts yesterday, (her living room being her last remaining venue after being fired from both TV and Radio for being, well, Wendy Bell).

You can see the Ireland Contracting logo on her BS/bullshit board. It includes their phone number. Do you see it? Wendy put it there. It's 1 800 NEW ROOF. Now, I am sure they do fine roofing work but do they know that they're sponsoring batshit crazy Wendy Bell? I am sure they do so there's no need to call them via the toll free number on Wendy's bullshit board to remind them that Wendy Bell is batshit crazy and they they sponsor her. That they're profiting off of her batshit bullshit. Nope. No need to do that at all.

Anyway. Wendy, after spouting some stats showing Trump's increases in the number of people who voted for him in 2020 compared to 2016 asks, about 9 minutes in:

But we're supposed to "suck it up" and believe that somehow Joe Biden, who couldn't pack his own lunch let alone a high school gymnasium with people, we're told that he, who did not campaign at all, who spent the majority of the summer and the fall in his basement "being safe" [irony airquotes here], we're told that he beat Donald Trump?

Yes, Wendy. You're told that because it's the truth.

Via the AP:

The popular vote

  • Biden (the winner) 79,887,852
  • Trump (the loser) 73,815,488

That's a difference of 6,072,488 votes, Wendy.

The electoral vote

  • Biden (the winner) 306
  • Trump (the loser) 232 

That's a difference of 74 electoral votes, Wendy. BTW, this is the exact same spread as last go-round. And of that spread (306-232) Trump said it was a "landslide." So this must be a landslide too, right??

The popular vote in Pennsylvania:

  • Biden (the winner) 3,459,246
  • Trump (the loser) 3,378,197

That's a difference of 81,049

That's a lot of votes Wendy, right? 

There's no evidence of voter fraud, Wendy. If there were then Trump's own lawyers would be presenting it in court. But they're not. So there isn't any.

How can you not see this?

Biden won, Wendy. Trump lost. By a lot.

Suck it up.

November 23, 2020

What, Exactly, Triggered Toomey's Trump-Disgust? And When?

 Not sure if you caught this, but look:

Look who's on Bernstein's list: Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.

While it's true that Toomey finally came around this weekend and issued a statement containing those eight syllables that are, at this point still banished from the GOP/MAGA episteme: President-elect Joe Biden. 

But when did Pat Toomey express "extreme contempt for Trump & his fitness as POTUS"? 

Was it before or after he voted to acquit Trump for obstruction and abuse:

Today, I joined a majority of senators in voting to acquit President Trump. The Constitution sets a very high bar for impeachment and removal of a sitting president. While some of President Trump's actions were inappropriate, they did not come close to meeting the very high bar required to justify overturning the last election, removing him from office, and kicking him off the ballot in an election that has already begun. In November, the American people will decide for themselves whether President Trump should stay in office. In our democratic system, that's the way it should be.

Was it before or after Trump tweeted this (in response to Toomey calling Roger Stone's pardon a "mistake"):

Note: Stone was convicted of seven felony counts, including lying to Congress and witness tampering. And Obama did not spy on the Trump campaign.

Senator Toomey, I have a few questions: 

  • Did you discover your Trump disgust before or after either of the above?
  • If it's before, then why weren't you honest with your constituents and say so then?
  • And if it was after, can you please explain why you were OK with Trump then but not now?

I realize that you're not running for reelection in 2022 and so you have a fair amount of freedom from the Trump's MAGA crews, but if you could explain yourself, that would be great.


November 22, 2020

Donald Trump Loses In Pennsylvania. Again.

 From the AP:

A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign’s futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

You can read the opinion here (and I suggest you do). 

Back to the AP:

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

Let's take a deeper look at that section of the opinion - it's the opening of the Introduction:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

For those who are curious as to what it means to dismiss a case "with prejudice," it means

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.

And in case my non-attorney research is wrong, here it is from ABC News:

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the Trump campaign cannot resubmit the case. The defeat levels a blow to the most high-profile case brought by the president in his multi-state effort to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.

Let's not be so quick to dismiss him as an "Obama appointee" however. Take a look:

Brann, who is active in Republican politics in Pennsylvania, faced the most challenging questioning of the hourlong hearing at which five candidates for federal judgeships and a spot on the U.S. Sentencing Commission were considered. 

Citing Brann's involvement with the state Republican Party, the National Rifle Association and the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called him "probably the most Republican judicial nominee from the Obama White House."

There's more (I'm adding this just in case your MAGA uncle starts ranting about the Demonrat judge in Pennsylvania who's keeping Trump from fulfilling God's purpose of at least two terms:

And now, look at what's happenned. Senator Pat Toomey finally pulls the trigger

With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.

This ruling follows a series of procedural losses for President Trump’s campaign. On Friday, the state of Georgia certified the victory of Joe Biden after a hand recount of paper ballots confirmed the conclusion of the initial electronic count. Michigan lawmakers rejected the apparent attempt by President Trump to thwart the will of Michigan voters and select an illegitimate slate of electoral college electors. These developments, together with the outcomes in the rest of the nation, confirm that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and will become the 46th President of the United States.

I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country. Unsurprisingly, I have significant policy disagreements with the President-elect. However, as I have done throughout my career, I will seek to work across the aisle with him and his administration, especially on those areas where we may agree, such as continuing our efforts to combat COVID-19, breaking down barriers to expanding trade, supporting the men and women of our armed forces, and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

Of course Toomey is not running for reelection in 2022 so he's got little to lose politically.

Which is good news, I suppose, because:

Again, no evidence of 900,000 fraudulent votes in PA. If there was evidence of such fraud it would have been presented in court.

And it wasn't.


November 21, 2020

Wendy, Wendy, Wendy. What Are You Doing?

 On her Facebook Page, Wendy Bell posted this:

I posted this as a comment:

Not sure where you're going with this, Wendy.
Biden won Georgia by 12,670 votes.
Biden won Michigan by 155,629 votes.
Biden won Wisconsin by 20,608 votes.
Biden won Pennsylvania by 80,996 votes.
Are you saying that Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh et al are now going to overturn the will of the people? To disenfranchise all those votes? On what grounds? No evidence of widespread voter fraud has been presented in any court - certainly not enough to overturn the tens of thousand votes needed to give the electoral votes from those four states to Trump.
Biden won the election. President-elect Joe Biden will be taking the Oath of Office in January. Trump's concession is long over due. The longer he waits the more damage he's doing to the nation and to the GOP.
Even the CONSERVATIVE Washington Examiner says it's time for Trump to concede.
It's over. Biden won. Checkmate.

Looking back at her posting, I am not sure Wendy understands the concept of "checkmate."

Be that as it may, as you can tell from my comment I think it's safe to infer that Wendy thinks that those newly reassigned justices will do Trump's bidding and reassign those errant electoral votes to their rightful owner: Donald Trump.

Regardless of the will of the people in those states.

Then there's this comment of mine:

Also Wendy, Trump as head of the Executive Branch has no authority to make these Judicial Branch assignments. Trump didn't do it.
From 28 USC 42:
The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation.
You'll note that "in vacation" means between legislative terms.
You really need get your facts straight BEFORE posting to your audience. How many of them RIGHT NOW think that Trump did this just because you said so?
Do you feel any responsibility to make sure you have your facts right?

Sadly, Wendy Bell represents a large and vocal segment of the once respectable Republican Party. I can't say I ever agreed with much of what the GOP stood for but whatever credibility it had is long gone in the face of Trumpism.

November 20, 2020

Senator Mitt Romney on Donald Trump. How Many Other Republicans Will Follow Suit?

The Senator from Utah tweeted:

The text:

Having failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law, the President has now resorted to overt pressure on state and local officials to subvert the will of the people and overturn the election. It is difficult to imagine a worse, more undemocratic action by a sitting American President.

But this is Donald Trump we're talking here. Give it a day. I am sure he'll do something more undemocratic. 

How many Republicans are brave enough to follow suit? It's difficult to imagine any more than a few.

What say you, Senator Toomey? You're not running for re-election in 2022. That gives you a modicum of freedom from the GOP MAGA hordes, doesn't it? When can we expect you to stand up for what's right?

While we're waiting, here's some Keith Olbermann:

November 19, 2020

Wendy Bell - Putting The Public Health At Risk. Again

On her Facebook Page, Wendy Bell posted this:

Pennsylvania is now under a universal masking order.
The secretary of health says people are required to wear masks indoors and outdoors when they are with others who are not members of their household.
Further, she expects law enforcement and business owners to enforce her orders.
Do you think masks work?

Wendy, what's the point of asking your adoring fans whether they think masks work?

They do. Masks work. The scientific data support the use of masks to protect the public from spreading the virus. This is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion. A person watching your living room broadcasts with a different opinion does not change that fact.

From the CDC:

SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks, to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions. Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects; individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.

So a mask protects in two ways:

  • Source control  - the mask filters the virus in transmission from an infected person (including those who don't know they're infected) to someone else.
  • Filtration for personal protection - the mask filters the virus in transmission to an uninfected person.

But is there a downside to maskwearing? For example, what does the science say about the build-up of CO2 when wearing a mask?

From the American Lung Association

Do Masks Cause Low Oxygen Levels?

Absolutely not. We wear masks all day long in the hospital. The masks are designed to be breathed through and there is no evidence that low oxygen levels occur.

And if you want to read a study that says the same, here's one. From the paper's "Discussion" section:

Although we did not measure changes in tidal volume or minute ventilation, this data find that gas exchange is not significantly affected by the use of surgical mask, even in subjects with severe lung impairment.


It is important to inform the public that the discomfort associated with mask use should not lead to unsubstantiated safety concerns as this may attenuate the application of a practice proven to improve public health. As growing evidence indicates that asymptomatic individuals can fuel the spread of COVID-19,12 universal mask use needs to be vigorously enforced in community settings, particularly now that we are facing a pandemic with minimal proven therapeutic interventions. We believe our data will help mitigate fears about the health risks of surgical mask use and improve public confidence for more widespread acceptance and use.

So that's settled, right?

But seriously Wendy. Why are you even questioning this?

Every time you do this, you're undermining the credibility of the science - thus putting the public health at risk.

Every time you do this, you're putting more people are at risk of getting very very sick. And some of those people may die.

Wendy Bell - The Angel of Death.

November 18, 2020

Some More Election Result Numbers (PA 2020 vs MI, PA, WI 2016)

In Pennsylvania, according to the AP:

Biden: 3,445,548 votes

Trump: 3,363,951 votes

That's a difference of 81,597 in Pennsylvania.

Last go around (2016) three states from the so-called "blue wall" (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) voted for Trump over Clinton by these differences:

Michigan: 10,704 more votes for Trump

Pennsylvania: 44,292 more votes for Trump

Wisconsin: 22,748 more votes for Trump

That's a combined tally of 77,744.

So what do we have here?

So far Biden has won more votes in Pennsylvania, a must-get "pivot point" state, than Trump won in those three states combined.

This was not a close election, folks.

And it's time for Trump to concede.