President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday laid out a three-point plan to begin defeating the coronavirus. What's odd his plan has already been implemented... Hey, I don't want a President that just borrows from what others have done, or do I need a bunch of flowery words that leave me wondering --- What the hell has he really got to offer?
1. Wear masks for 100 days --- Joe we have been wearing masks for 10 months. Not sure it wise to use this as part of your plan? We are very much aware of the importance of mask-wearing and I for one don't appreciate you even bring this up.
2. "Biden also pledged to distribute “at least 100 million covid vaccine shots” during that time, singling out educators, who he said should get shots “as soon as possible” after they are given first to health workers and people who live and work in long-term-care facilities under current plans. He did not specify whether he meant 100 million doses or vaccinating that many people; the two vaccines nearing approval both require two doses."
Really Joe --- Ever hear of Operation Wap Speed? By the time you move from your basement, we may be well on our way to having one hundred million vaccinated. (This all sounds so ridiculous)
The other goal of his 100-day plan, Biden said, is to enable “the majority of our schools” to reopen within that time and to remain open. He called on Congress to devote the funding needed to make it safe for students and teachers to return to classrooms."
Hey Joe, our private schools have been open since early September. And in many Republican states... Curious you were so ready to
Lock it down if we saw spikes. Hey Joe, we are having the highest stats in regards to infecting and hospitalizations, Far worse than any we have experienced.
IMO -- This man is lacking leadership, and it is evident he is willing to take credit for someone else's accomplishments. He is one scary Dude... Just listening to his latest speech instills a large doubt in regard to his cognitive skills, and ability to govern America? Lot's of words, that meant zip...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/b … story.html
But, but, but Trump spearheaded those efforts. His actions don't count. Biden can do the same thing and get credit for being first.
Well, that is debatable. I have seen reports this morning credit should go tom, Obama... LOL
I hope you took the time to listen to his speech. He is such a typical politician. "Just say a lot, and hope that something sticks or they become confused and just walk away thinking --- with all those words there must be some great stuff coming my way... LOL
I honestly feel sorry for Biden. He's been in politics so long I just don't think he gets that the internet makes it impossible to speak out of both sides of your mouth, lie and plagiarize.
I'm going to play the game the democrats invented for Trump for the next 4 years. Biden's not my president and an illegitimate one, at that.
Yes, they were good teachers. And, I agree he is not my President. I am surprised they are even letting him out.
I'm disappointed in the American people, that anyone voted for him but, I think many people don't want to think, but be told what to do and the Democratic party has a lock on those types.
For the rest of his votes, I guess I get it. Trump will always be his own worst enemy and those who vote personality, not policy, were bound to vote against him.
I agree. I am very shocked to see he a man win the presidency without campaigning. It stood to show me a lot about a segment of Americans, a lot a never dreamed I would have to witness.
Wow, it's shocking that a presidential candidate who chose to follow CDC guidelines and hold virtual campaign events and small, socially distanced gatherings instead of super-spreader events and rallies, during a pandemic in which almost 300,00 people have now died, was considered by more people to be the better candidate. I mean, he undoubtedly prevented a bunch of illness and death doing that, unlike that other guy who spread it to his family and staff, not to mention any number of loyal followers.
Go figure, huh?
I have to do this --- No I really had to do this...
Ooooohh, so original. ;-)
Lol, sure,but one is fact-based and one isn't.
You said you were shocked to see a man win the presidency without campaigning. Biden did campaign, so either you are mistaken or you are not telling the truth.
I consider myself pretty well informed. I just must have missed something. Or we have very different ideas about campaigning.
It doesn't matter. The left believes what it wants. Facts don't matter.
"Biden made 57 campaign visits in September and October. Trump made just eight more visits, with 65. Biden visited fewer states (10) than Trump (15). But Biden campaigned more often (14 times) than Trump (13 times) in Pennsylvania, the top battleground state, and they visited Florida 10 times each.
For that matter, Biden made more campaign visits (57) than his much younger running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (46), as well as Vice President Mike Pence (52)."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1245872
You definitely missed something and I'm not sure you're that well informed. ;-)
Of course, like I said, his events were responsible, intelligent affairs, mindful of a raging pandemic that has now killed almost 300,000 people in the U.S.
And, yes, Rudy was at the Christmas Super Spreader event. Another thing you are well informed about, I guess.
You keep repeating that Biden won (btw, admitting he won again, good for you!) without campaigning as if it was a bad thing and as an insult to Biden. But that means Trump was so bad and that so many people were tired of him that they voted for the other "basement hiding non-campaigning" guy. I don't think you thought that through.
Have you followed LTL and my conversation? It would seem you are jumping in without following the context of our conversation. As dod IB. Context mattered unless you are joining into baiting as IB frequently does. As she has here. If one is going to bait. At best follow the entire conversation.
My goodness, sharlee, just admit to your words. You're entitled to them just as we are entitled to counter them. You have stated many times that Biden didn't campaign, that he stayed in his basement, that he didn't share his policies. These are all factually incorrect . And doesn't that quality as "baiting"? Repeating a falsehood multiple times?
What "context" could possibly justify that?
And it is not even that. If those were true, it reflects worse on Trump than Biden.
But boohoo, false indignation. Deflect 101.
You still just don't get it. It is all about what I have come to expect from a presidential candidate. The past history I am accustomed to, up until Biden, I can pretty much say candidates campaigned a bit more as a rule and shared their policies as agenda here in America.
Your analogy could infer campaigning is not essential any longer due to Biden winning the election with so little campaigning. I don't agree.
You were clearly making an attempt to deflect with your analogy. As per usual making a weak attempt to deflect to a "Trump did this comparison".
My conversation with LTL was about one person --- Biden. I was well satisfied with Trump's campaign, and his policies. And to complete my sentiment, I was pleased to see so many American citizens vote for him due to his job performance, and policies. Gives me hope.
Your analogy could infer campaigning is not essential any longer due to Biden winning the election with so little campaigning. I don't agree.
Nope. You're the one that still dont get it.
I certainly made an effort to explain my comment just to be polite. A comment where I was responding to an ongoing conversation with another. Not sure why you care so much about my opinion or feel you have the right to question it?
Would you prefer no one care about your "opinion"? That wouldn't be very fun, would it?
And who are you to think you should not be questioned when you post on a public forum? SHeesh, you just get more and more "out there."
Would you prefer no one care about your "opinion"? Ultimately I don't care if someone agrees or cares about my opinion. I mean come on it's my opinion, everyone has their own. Is that not true? And yes this is a chat forum so all can toss their thoughts and feelings into the pot.
"And who are you to think you should not be questioned when you post on a public forum? "
I am not disputing anyone's right to question my comments. I also feel I have the right to question a given comment. As you have mine. I do not intend to become accustomed to only being questioned and not responding with a question or opinion. I don't think many here would say I am opposed to being questioned, in fact, I would more think some would find my answers long, boring.
I will say, I am never shocked at the one-sidedness some show here.
You said to Islandbites: "Not sure why you care so much about my opinion or feel you have the right to question it?"
It sounds to me like you are questioning her right to question your opinion, but....okay.
Please consider, that statement was made after several comments that I had hoped would explain my very first statement. It was apparent we were looking at that statement differently. I made every attempt to explain the context I was making an attempt to convey to LTL. I can see where she was coming from, totally, and she has the right to say anything she pleases. However, I became weary of defending my original context.
I don't want to be hurtful... But at this point, I must say I saw absolutely no sense in her analogy. I could have if seen her analogy If in my original comment I compared Trump's style of campaigning to Bidens.
I did not. If fact I would not have defended the method Trump chose to campaign with a virus plaguing the country!
I was pointing out a view, and that was about how Biden campaigned, Nothing to do with Trump or anyone else. That is my view, not about to change it, I am disappointed with how Biden campaigned.
She read too much into my comment. She could have asked questions, she actually did not. I would have simply answered her question.
All she offered is something about " perhaps you did not think this through" something to that effect and offered an analogy that did not fit the context of the conversation. Yes after multiple back and forths I did make the statement Not sure why you care so much about my opinion or feel you have the right to question it?" And I am still curious in regards to wh. I should have said --- or felt you have the right to question my view even after I explained my reasoning until I was nauseous.
Let me state --- Anyone that wants to ask me a question have at it. I think some here would say I am open to questions and as a rule, respond to a given questions. Yes, I am opinionated, as everyone else here is. I may be very straight forward with my communications. I would guess I am not going to change in that respect. So some just may not be wise to communicate with me.
This subject has been beaten to death, I will say I learned a lot about how some viewed the comment, and I will tuck that knowledge away, and I will try to employ a bit of placating with some. Just to keep the peace.
When I say "okay" I am indicating I have read and "heard" your explanation even if I consider it to be off base or inadequate. There is no need to keep defending yourself unless you have something new to say. Okay?
So, my response to your latest long explanation is simply "okay." I hear you even if I don't completely but into it. I could simply not respond but that feels rude, but from now on, if I have said " okay" and you continue to repeat what you have previously stated, I will not respond further. No rudeness intended.
I am not defending myself... I was responding to your question.
"You said to Islandbites: "Not sure why you care so much about my opinion or feel you have the right to question it?"
It sounds to me like you are questioning her right to question your opinion, but....okay."
Did you not claim --- It sounds to me like you are questioning her right to question your opinion, but....okay."
I was being polite once again giving a response to your sentiment. I have nothing new to add.
I really dont. You can stop explaining yourself if you want. I was pointing the obvious - in a public forum.
Your anology had nothing to do with the conversation. I found your analogy simplistic, baiting. No need to bring Trump into a conversation about my disappointment in a segment of American's. Due to voting for a man I found did not present an agenda. You had every right to jump in, say anything you wanted to share... Just as I had the right to label your comment irrelevant to the context of my conversation.
How do I say this ---- You were pointing out you're obvious, your obvious means no more than mine. And in this case, I found (in my view) you were making an attempt to enter Trump into a conversation with an anology that I did not agree with. Do views clash. No more no less.
I admit to my words, but not the context that was read into them. And yes you did offer some good stats in regard to Biden's perhaps appearances and Delaware statements. I do not agree he shared much on policy or agenda, and much was walked back as need be. Which is normal in politicing.
Perhaps I will watch my words a bit more closely my statement ---
I agree. I am very shocked to see he a man win the presidency without campaigning.
I could correct to read I am shocked to see a man win the presidency with so little campaigning or unsatisfactory campaigning to suit me.
At any rate, I found the IB analogy very weak. Either of us knows why Biden won the election, we can only guess.
I have followed the context of the discussion Sharlee. But, even with context considered, it is a simple matter to boil-down any rhetoric and extraneous words, (verbiage would be more appropriate, but it sounds uppity to use it), to reach a bottom-line understanding of a conversation. When I considered the essence of your replies, my "Zingggg . . ." reply to IslandMom seemed appropriate.
It still does.
What the context was --- me sharing my view with another in an ongoing conversation. Had nothing to do with Trump. It had to do with a person (me) being disappointed in a segment of Americans that voted for a man that campaigned so little, did not share much in regard to his plans for the country. No more no less. I certainly was not in any respect comparing styles of campaigning. Her anology to put it mildly was simplistic and biating. At any rate, the context of my conversation with LTL had zero to do with Trump from my perspective.
Yes, the word verbiage does sound a bit uppity, I stopped using it a bit ago. uppity? All is fair... LOL
In regard to your Zinggggg... Your view was appropriate if you felt the anology she used was suitable. Perhaps IB could have used a bit more verbiage ( in this case I use the word--- the way in which something is expressed). when offering her view, and the context could have become richer, perhaps something more interesting than a Trump bash.
You see I am very tired of placating these forms of comments any longer.
I was responding to a specific conversation, a given subject that another user brought her disappointment in the American people... I in response agreed that I also was disappointed, and gave just one of the reasons I was disappointed. --Biden's lack of campaigning, my disappointment in American's for voting for such a candidate.
The context of a conversation matters when responding in the middle of a conversation. I can appreciate you have an opinion, and your welcome to share. But there is no cause to tell me "I don't think you thought that through."
LIVE TO LEARN WROTE:
"I'm disappointed in the American people, that anyone voted for him but, I think many people don't want to think but be told what to do and the Democratic party has a lock on those types.
For the rest of his votes, I guess I get it. Trump will always be his own worst enemy and those who vote personality, not policy, were bound to vote against him."
Shar stated ---" I agree. I am very shocked to see he a man win the presidency without campaigning. It stood to show me a lot about a segment of Americans, a lot a never dreamed I would have to witness."
I offered her my opinion on the subject. LTL had shared her disappointment in a Biden win. I shared my disappointment in American's voting for a man that did not campaign. My comment to LTL was well thought out, and actually my view.
It would seem you want me to defend that a candidate for president should be expected to share what they offer in regards to their policies and agenda? You seem to be Inferring that Biden won without campaigning, and perhaps in some sense is fine in your view.
Campaigning has been part of what we as Americans did expect in the past from our candidates and I share that sentiment. To each their own...
You've been repeating the same for a while, but suuure, sure.
Repeating exactly what? My opinion on how a presidential candidate should campaign? Why does this disturb you? I have given you my view. Not sure as always what you are even talking about. If I am repeating my view on anything frequently, that is my right, and I will continue to pretty much state what I feel I want to share. You certainly seem to be very concerned with my posts. ODD
I think I made my point about not following a conversation and jumping in without respecting the context. Perhaps you have not read the long ongoing conversation LTL and I was having. Or perhaps you just disagree with our opinions. You have said your bit, and I can only speak for myself -- but it seems odd, baiting, and to make any logical sense. In regard to the conversation, I was sharing with LTL.
I had hoped some would comment about Joe's three-step plan to combat COVID. The very subject of this thread. I had hoped this thread would bring out opinions on Biden, I mean "come on man" we all have had our fill of Trump did this, he also did that.
Has Biden more or less just borrowed those steps in his plan from the President Trump administration?
Does Biden's behavior on borrowing others' accomplishments warn of things to come? I have noted so far he has called on the Obama appointees to fill his cabinet. Has he once again borrowed on someone else's decision making?
Is Joe a copy cat, a man without a plan or agenda of his own?
Do any of these questions concern you as an American?
As I have been writing so many times after half a century in politics he has no new ideas.
I guess I missed all the above "Biden visits". I guess his visits just were under-reported. Although I do remember him coming to Sterling Hgts Mich, and he stood outside an auto plant our local news covered his visit., but no one showed up but Trump supporters. It was quite funny. I would suppose you are counting Joe's "fireside or excuse me, I mean laundry room side chats"?
How could I miss Rudy attending a supper spreader. Guess I am just not tuning into CNN or MSNBC. Such an important report... Here I have been concentrating on the operation Wrap Speed Sumit, Hunter, and the investigations into his possible money laundering and tax evasion, and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) sexual relationship with an accused Chinese spy, or the election fraud accusations.
Do you know what Melania was wearing? Sorry, just more important things going on than a maskless Christmas party. I must point out, many Dem politicians have been caught red-handed dining, traveling, and even protesting without masks.
It's clear we have totally different ways of weighing what is pressing in regards to news. So much going on I see many pressing problems more weighty than a maskless Xmas party. Yes, I certainly am not I favor of a maskless party or gathering. But I also am very concerned and interested in all I mentioned. It would seem you may be only concerned about Trump's world. We now have a Biden world.
I only responded to your own inaccurate assertions. You brought them up. Then said you consider yourself to be pretty well informed.
I am sorry you consider the POTUS and his cronies recklessly spreading a deadly virus to be no more consequential than Melania's dress but I guess that attitude explains why the U.S. has now lost almost 300,000 people to COVID-19. We lost over 3,000 people just yesterday.
I was being sarcastic... My bad
Yes, we did lose 3000 people yesterday. Thank God we had a president that did all in his power to get us a vaccine. The only thing that will help defeat the virus.
Lol, okay, so you DO consider the president and his cronies holding large events with no masks or social distancing to be serious.
Just want to be sure I'm keeping up. It's kind. of hard. "I see many pressing problems more weighty than a maskless Xmas party."
To borrow from a comment I posted to you here a few comments back when you first brought up the subject.
"It's clear we have totally different ways of weighing what is pressing in regards to news. So much going on I see many pressing problems more weighty than a maskless Xmas party. YES, I certainly am not In favor of a maskless party or gathering."
Perhaps you missed this post.
No, I saw it. I also saw the rest of it attempting to minimize it.
Yes, we will always see things differently.
Yes, at this point that has moved to the bottom of my concerns. Finally, we understand one another, we are so far apart in how we see things.
"Yes, at this point that has moved to the bottom of my concerns."
And, that bolsters my original point, that Biden's responsible campaigning was apparently viewed favorably and in direct contrast to Trump's reckless abandonment of any semblance of concern for the pandemic.
Trump supporters were fine with it, the rest of us are not.
I can't speak for all President Trump's supporters. In my opinion, Biden did very little campaigning, he offered very little in the way of policies, and barely answered any questions from the press. I know little about Biden other than what I could dig up online. I actually did a very fact-oriented Hubpage on Biden while making an attempt to get to know him. It turned out to be a sad negative HP. However, my research leads me down that road. I did find a couple of bills he backed that I considered positive. But the negative outweighed the positive.
It is apparent you appreciated Biden's mode of campaigning. We must agree to disagree on that point. It is also clear there was and is a divide in how people felt about how President Trump campaigned and how Biden campaigned. I support President Trump, I did not support his rallies. I do not stand in judgment on those that had a different belief than I.
I will leave that to you.
I admit I stand in judgment because I try, above all things, to admit my own feelings and actions. I beg to disagree that you do not stand in judgment of others. This whole conversation started with your statement:
"I agree. I am very shocked to see he a man win the presidency without campaigning. It stood to show me a lot about a segment of Americans, a lot a never dreamed I would have to witness."
Sounds pretty judge-y to me. I don't care because I know everyone judges everyone else. Only some will admit it, though. What I take note of is what people are judgmental about, as it reveals their priorities.
I think it admirable you stand up for what you believe, this is something I noted when conversing with you. I too try to bring my feelings to a conversation. You have critiqued a statement I made, as judgemental.
"I agree. I am very shocked to see he a man win the presidency without campaigning. It stood to show me a lot about a segment of Americans, a lot a never dreamed I would have to witness."
My statement was formed by my judgment, of a given situation, and how I viewed it.
Was I judgmental? Yes... I did exhibit a critical point of view. Although I did not direct it to an individual, and my opinion was formed using my ability to make what I considered or perceived a sound conclusion.
I can see my very last statement was overly judgemental, directed at you directly. For this I am sorry.
The fact that anyone could think that holding huge, maskless, non-socially distanced rallies in the middle of a pandemic was the right way to campaign illustrates the opposite of being well-informed.
As to the post's main thrust, even if Trump vaccinated 100 million people, that's less than a third of the country. Not even close enough to the levels we need to reach vaccinated herd immunity, hence Biden setting a goal to get another 100 million gets us very close to achieving the actual goal to stop the virus. Criticizing that goal is showing a misunderstanding of how to defeat the virus. Just sayin'.
And I'm down in one of them states Trump won for the holidays. Setting a goal to get everyone to wear masks when they go out shopping is definitely still needed. Lots of people still obviously think the virus is a hoax as about 20% of people shopping indoors aren't masking up here. In my home state, it's about 99% of people who mask up indoors.
I consider the vaccine the only way to build a herd. The herd is most likely huge due to so many most likely had the virus and did not need treatment. I give Trump full credit for his Operation Wrap Speed, spending the cash to allow companies to be able to do research and development at record speeds. I could care less about what Biden said, he has already proven himself to walk back even his biggest promises. Plus, Trump is the one that got the contracts for the vaccines for Joe to say he will deliver. Just last week Trump ordered that 100 million Pfizer. Joe seems to always be borrowing from what others have already done.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/health/p … index.html
Clearly you do care about what Biden says as you made a thread to criticize his goals while giving Trump as much credit as possible, even when companies like Pfizer accepted no US government money (funded by Germany) to develop their own vaccine, and when Trump sinks a relief bill by making unrealistic demands that he knows his own party will not approve, that would have provided state aid to help get people vaccinated.
As for the herd, 18 million infected, and even if an estimate of equal that of asymptomatic who may not have know they had it, that's still just over 10% of the country of 328 million. Not huge enough to achieve the necessary herd levels to stop the virus. Hence why setting a goal of another 100 million is a necessity.
Yes, I did a very lengthy Hubpage on everything Biden... I put it together while I did my research on him as a presidential candidate. In my perspective, he had every characteristic many disliked in President Trump. However, he has many of those negative character flaws abundances. Yes, at this point I am already disgusted with his status quo speeches, lots of words that mean zip. I am more than willing to play it day by day at this point with Joe.
It's well known out of the six companies associated with Operation Warp speed that Pfizer took no money for research and development. Their contract was to assure the US would get the first 20 million doses of their vaccine. which was a brilliant move.
NYT article correction
"WASHINGTON — As nations around the world race to lock up coronavirus vaccines even before they are ready, the Trump administration on Wednesday made one of the largest investments yet, announcing a nearly $2 billion contract with Pfizer and a German biotechnology company for 100 million doses by December.
The contract is part of what the White House calls the Warp Speed project, an effort to drastically shorten the time it would take to manufacture and distribute a working vaccine. So far, the United States has put money into more than a half dozen efforts, hoping to build manufacturing ability for an eventual breakthrough. Under the arrangement, the federal government would obtain that first batch for $1.95 billion, or about $20 a dose, with the rights to acquire up to 500 million more, or 600 million total. Americans would receive the vaccine for free. Before it could be distributed, it would need emergency approval by the Food and Drug Administration. But the U.S. government does not pay the nearly $2 billion until the drug is approved and the first 100 million doses are delivered."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/p … ccine.html
All of the other 5 were provided billions for research and development.
I was very hopeful he would not sign the bill. Full of fluffy far leaf pork. Hey, he promised to show them up. If he signed that bill I would have bashed him. Love to see the Dems in Washington shown for what they are.
Won't argue herd immunity in regards to COVID. I feel we have a good size herd already and it will get better with the vaccine delivery. Just my opinion.
I have just one comment and I apologize for it but it is driving me nuts how you keep typing "Operation Wrap Speed" instead of "Operation Warp Speed." There, I said it.
Pretty Panther ---I appreciate your heads up... I did not realize I was that. I have a way of turning words inside out, and upside down. On another note, I hope I can stop even bringing it up. it's a new year and old news. Thanks again
oh my gawd . . . a kindred spirit. I see these types of typos in Sharlee's comments all the time. But, I bite my tongue because; 1) I understand typos happen to all of us, and, 2) I think I remember Sharlee saying that many of her replies are done on her phone. I can't even imagine trying that. My hunt and peck is bad enough on a keyboard, I would hate to imagine what it would be on a phone text screen.
So here's my Pick on Sharlee: "Discussed" instead of "disgusted." I have seen that repeatedly and am forced to attribute it to a phone's spellchecker.
In case my thoughts aren't clear Sharlee, I am attempting to support you rather than criticize you. ;-)
I offered Valeant a similar reply, but yours seems backed by more research than mine. [b]^5]/b]
It would seem Operation Warp Speed has provided the Country with a vaccine quickly. If some will think back to last spring Dr. Faici claimed it would take possibly two years or more to develop a vaccine. In the near future, we will have several other drug companies presenting their vaccines to the FDA. Johnson and Johnson are very close to presenting their vaccine. If all goes well they will supply 100 million doses. It would well seem we will have a vaccine for anyone that wants to step up and take it. It appears many Americans have some form of magical thinking to even think the vaccine could have been developed and produced more quickly.
IMO --- I have listened to Biden talk about what he would be doing. His three-step plan. He is just offering solutions that have already been done.
And the COVID/ Spending Measures bill is ridiculous. Too ridiculous to even discuss. I for one would have been very disappointed if Trump signs that bill. He was hired to give us a transparent view of the swamp. He has done that by pointing out this ridiculous bill. Time to start cutting the attachments/ pork off our spending bills. This bill was a great big Christmas Ham.
But Pres.-elect Biden is pushing for the purchase of another 100 million doses so that is the move that will help us emerge from this crisis, right?
Pfizer may not have accepted development money, but they did accept advance purchase commitments which allowed them to start manufacturing the vaccine before it was officially approved—so that those Warp Speed distributions were ready to go on approval—without a further wait for manufacturing to take place. And they did benefit from the reduced red-tape authorities of Operation Warp Speed to get through their clinical trial and approval processes. But, what does that matter. Biden will order another 100 million of those Pres. Trump Operation Warp Speed facilitated doses because he has the plan that Pres. Trump failed to provide for our nation's safety.
Geez. Hopefully, you can help me understand what Biden policies will be more impactful, and intelligently applied, than the ones that are putting vaccines in American arms right now?
As a side note; Are you really okay with "the relief bill" that Pres. Trump vetoed, (or has threatened to veto—I may not be up to speed on this)? Hundreds of millions, (adding up to billions?), for gender studies in Pakistan, or military purchase in the Near East, or . . . I am sure you must be familiar with the list. I certainly would not be comfortable calling this latest "Relief" bill a Covid-19 pandemic Relief bill.
I haven't looked, but I must wonder, have you looked at the contents of the bill the pesident has, (or is threatening to), veto(ed)? Are you comfortable that it is a bill focused on helping the American people?
Pfizer took in 51 billion in revenue last year, and I'm sure they knew if they got to market first, they'd make a return on their investment. That's called business. Doubt they needed any up front investment in any way. And they did not take any shortcuts, according to the company.
As for policies that Biden will have that will be more effective, I'm not part of his administration nor do I own a crystal ball. What I do know is that Biden has followed the science while Trump has been doing the opposite for the last nine months. That, in itself, is a better policy and likely why Trump will have much more golf time in about a month.
Think of them as two separate bill, Gus. One is relief, one is appropriations.
It's time to approve funding of the government and Congress included those things because Trump asked for them in his administrations budget requests. Then when Congress put them in, he vetoed what his own administration asked for.
And yes, I am comfortable with sending some of my tax dollars to people we may want to call our allies abroad. If we don't, they will turn to others who may not have our best interests at heart. It's called international diplomacy. Not sure why Trump supporters suddenly want to do away with it, but they are in the minority on that front.
It is a virus, like the Flu, it mutates. Any vaccine they create will have the same effective rate as a Flu Vaccine... about 10%.
Also, how a vaccine works is likely to cause about 1% of those who get it, to contract the virus and not develop the immune system's response to defeat it.
That's the medical side of the house... on the economic side the damage has been catastrophic and there will be no immediate recovery for it.
More than half of small businesses, more than half of all retail businesses, more than two thirds of all commercial properties will go bankrupt in 2021... and all those people who relied on them for jobs will be impacted.
All those unemployment checks that people have been just getting by on the last half year or so, will be gone as well... unemployment lasts 26 weeks.
We haven't been through the worst part of this "Pandemic".
I'm old enough to remember the 70s... when going to the Mall and parking your car meant there was a good chance someone was going to come by and drill a hole in your gas tank and steal your gas.
I'm wise enough to recognize that if we are seeing Food Bank lines across the country that are miles long, NOW, while people still have unemployment and while the economy hasn't totally tanked yet... we have seriously bad days to come, as a Nation.
I am thankful to be doing as well as I am, but I realize that many parts of the country are about to become more dangerous and desperate places.
First, 100 million doses won't achieve herd immunity, so without additional doses, that Trump turned down from Pfizer (who then sent 200 million doses to Europe), herd immunity won't be reached and he just threw away two billion dollars. And the rollout of 'warp speed' is comical at best as Pfizer has millions of doses sitting warehouses with no plan from Trump's Administration on where to send them.
Second, you're glad he turned down the bill with all the fluff. That fluff was all requested by his own administration in his budget request that is posted to the White House. So, let's get your logic straight - you're happy he turned down an appropriations bill where Congress gave him what he requested? This, folks, is the dysfunction of the Trump cult on full display.
https://www.biospace.com/article/u-s-go … ine-doses/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenb … e7e5be400d
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor … is-budget/
I did see the story that broke that the Trump ad. had the chance in Aug 2020 to order more vaccine over and above the 100 million that was in the first contract. I also saw little coverage that the Trump Ad on Dec 11 2020 opted to order an additional 100 million doses from Moderna which added to the original 100 million in the first contract the new order will be delivered in the first quarter of 2021 in conjunction with what was already slated to be sent.
Dec 23 ---
The Trump administration has ordered another 100 million doses of Pfizer and BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine, Pfizer announced Wednesday.
Under the agreement, Pfizer and BioNTech will supply a total of 200 million doses to the U.S., the company said in a statement. The deliveries are expected to be completed by the end of July 2021. The deal will also give the government the option to buy up to 400 million more doses.
Plus we will soon have three more companies present their vaccines to the FDA. I have no fear of a shortage, my fear is many won't take it.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … ses-pfizer
https://www.biospace.com/article/u-s-go … ine-doses/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ … -Candidate
I doubt whether the Republicans care about --- This bill contains $85.5 million for assistance to Cambodia, $134 million to Burma, $1.3 billion for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment. $25 million for democracy and gender programs in Pakistan, $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. $40 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, which is not even open for business. $1 billion for the Smithsonian and an additional $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. Or -- support the creation of two new expensive museums, a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum, or to support programs like, Then there is this, “a Statement Of Policy Regarding The Succession Or Reincarnation Of The Dalai Lama.” Need I go on... I certainly could. Lots of silly fluff I would say.
And yes I am very happy with him wanting to take some cash from the budget to add to COVID stimulus. How about we start with l $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. or the. $10 million. For gender programs. In Pakistan.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/531 … elief-bill
Please offer a source where the Republicans asked for any of that above crazy.
Happy reading: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … t_fy21.pdf
Trump's budget asks for those things, Congress approves it, then Trump vetoes it. Horrible governing by the worst president in history.
Not up for reading 5000, and then some pages. all I need to do is note the ridiculous, and I know it's a Dems add on. Come on...
So I provide you the source as requested, the budget from Trump himself since we all know that Trump supporters won't believe media sources, and your response is to deny. Come on...
Or maybe even you could have done a simple google search to verify that all the things Trump complained against were in that budget request.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5315 … e-items-he
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/politics … index.html
I know people can have trouble clicking on links, here's the key summary from the right-leaning 'The Hill' article:
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) rebuked President Trump over his criticism of a $2.3 trillion package to provide coronavirus relief and fund the government.
Gonzalez said Trump was misleading the public when he criticized the bill earlier this week, suggesting it was funding too many overseas projects and that it did not provide large enough stimulus checks to American families.
“If @realDonaldTrump didn't want money going to foreign countries, he shouldn't have asked for it. 100% of the items he complained about last night were either a lie (i.e. illegals aren't getting $1800) or things in HIS budget (all the foreign aid),” the Ohio Republican tweeted.
“Finally, people are conflating 2 things. The covid deal had none of the pork that is being discussed. It was, however, combined with the omnibus. The omni had tons of pork. Again, though, this was Trump's pork,” he added.
I am well aware the pork was not attached to the $900 billion stimulus package to address the economic fallout of the COVID pandemic but added to the $1.4 trillion spending measure to fund the government through Sept. You are also aware that Congress is presented with the budget and proceeds to screw it up as much as possible to suit all the pork they hope will float past a president? Not sure what Trump was complaining about, after doing some reading I ascertained all the rediculous pork that was added. Pardon me --- I don't in any respect think Trump added any of the following goodies to the spending measure ---
$40 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, which is not even open for business. $1 billion for the Smithsonian and an additional $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. Or -- support the creation of two new expensive museums, a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum, or to support programs like, Then there is this, “a Statement Of Policy Regarding The Succession Or Reincarnation Of The Dalai Lama.
There were very few things Trump demanded, two of which were money for farmers, and his wall.
The bill to add a Women's History Museum and an American Latino Museum was approved by Congress and initiated by Melendez, not Trump. The $900 million will be paid by both federal and public funding (50% each) during the next ten years and will be part of the Smithsonian's annual capital budget. Their annual budget of $1 billion includes about 3/4 salaries and 1/4 capital). If Trump wanted a building freeze, or cuts to the Smithsonian, maybe he should have told Congress before they passed the budget, but Congress gave them a budget on par with their 2020 budget. Not a huge increase or cuts, just the normal allocation for a staple of Washington, DC.
As for the Kennedy Center, if Trump objected to the allocation, perhaps he should not have signed the amount into law back in 2019 when he approved their funding as part of the John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2019 that was included in an appropriation bill he signed in December of that year, which assigned them funding amounts for four years, including salary and capital projects. If you didn't want to dig through Trump's 2021 budget, trust me, you won't want to search the 700 pages of that bill for the section on the Kennedy Center he approved, and now complains about after he put it into law.
I would think it well appears the Kennedy Center has been receiving tons of Taxpayer money for many years. In the last COVID Stimulus bill, the Dems attached and received $25 million as part of the CARES Act, which was designed to provide financial stimulus in response to the coronavirus outbreak.
I would be pissed off at Trump if he offered up a cent more in taxpayer's cash to the Kennedy Center. At this point in our history, it is time to put the arts on the back burner until we can help people regain some form of financial stability in their lives.
Is there a difference in an administration's budget requests and a relief package
I followed several links relative to the administration's foreign policy initiatives—like the Pakistan gender issues, (LOL), and have to wonder why the two administration goals were conflated. The public focus is on a relief bill. The administration's focus seems to be on both a relief bill, a continuance of government budget bill, and a foreign policy budget bill.
The administration, nor Congress, get a pass on this from me. They should do their job. Pass a relief bill and pass a continuance of government bill—don't conflate the two. They are separate entities.
I am almost with you on this one. Congress be damned! We heed to boot the lot.
Damn! Your first link was a mortal blow to Pres. Trump's Operation Warp Speed's efforts. They only purchased 2.9 million doses. How short-sighted of them! How many Maderna(sp?) doses did they pre-buy? But, is it a fact that it was a two-billion-dollar missed opportunity? Was any of that two-billion allocated to the Modernas vaccine? Did you check that out, or, are you just supplying links that confirm your thoughts?
*I have to add a caveat that that was my weak attempt at sarcasm.
Was the Trump administration dumb enough to put all their eggs in the Pfizer basket, or did they also pre-buy any Maderna doses? I don't know, I haven't checked, have you looked into this Valeant?
It seems, from what I understand, that the Moderna(sp?), doses are both less expensive and more transportable and utilizationally assessable, than Phizer's vaccine.
From your first link:
"A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services noted the government could acquire other vaccine doses from the likes of Moderna, which will see a review of its vaccine candidate on Dec. 17, as well as candidates developed by Novavax, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, the Times said. An administration official told The Hill that the U.S, government has contracts for a combined guarantee of 3 billion doses as well as the option for more, from those other companies. The official was critical of Pfizer's attempts to secure additional financing for doses while the vaccine candidate was still in clinical testing."
Is this the two-billion dollar missed opportunity you pointed to?
From your second link: "A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services noted the government could acquire other vaccine doses from the likes of Moderna, which will see a review of its vaccine candidate on Dec. 17, as well as candidates developed by Novavax, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, the Times said. An administration official told The Hill that the U.S, government has contracts for a combined guarantee of 3 billion doses as well as the option for more, from those other companies. The official was critical of Pfizer's attempts to secure additional financing for doses while the vaccine candidate was still in clinical testing"
Does any of this matter to your point about Pfizer purchases?
And your third link . . . I am not sure why you included it. It seems to support Pres. Trump's reasons for vetoing the bill.
Have you looked into this? Did we really miss the boat by not pre-paying for another 200 million doses of Pfizer's vaccine? Or, has the administration followed best praticies protocols by spreading their eggs among multiple baskets?
I'd say I'm surprised, but you didn't understand that there is Covid-19 relief funding and there is a government appropriations bill. In your last post, you thought they were one in the same. So, when I point out that Trump just vetoed a bill where Congress gave him what his administration asked for in his budget request as an example of his horrible governing skills, I figured you'd be able to keep up with that.
In terms of the vaccines, there was no guarantee that any of these would get approval. If I was looking out for the American people with American companies, I would have asked for enough doses to reach herd immunity from ALL of them in case some did not get to an effective vaccine. Without enough Americans vaccinated, the virus is not going anywhere, and my point is that if we do not get enough people vaccinated, any investment would be a wasted venture if the virus is permitted to linger and keep hitting us with future waves.
And I think I trust the HHS people as far as I can thrown them after learning in multiple reports how they altered CDC reports to steer the country into herd immunity without a vaccine. They have shown they are completely politicized, so I didn't omit their statements to fit my narrative, but because they been shown to be dishonest and untrustworthy. It's why people are talking about a potential for criminality among that group for the increased death toll in our country.
"In terms of the vaccines, there was no guarantee that any of these would get approval. If I was looking out for the American people with American companies, I would have asked for enough doses to reach herd immunity from ALL of them in case some did not get to an effective vaccine. "
Let me add just a bit of common sense --- Do you have any concept of how difficult it is to produce millions of doses of a vaccine? The 6 companies that went into contracts with our Government negotiated contracts one part of all the contracts they promised a given amount of vaccine, and that America would receive those first doses up to a given number. They stipulated the relevance of how much would be available per month. All of the companies gave realistic time tables of how much could be produced in a given time period. And we will see enough vaccine as quickly as the companies can produce the doses. You seem to think it would be an easy task to produce these millions of doses of vaccine.
Trump went with several companies to make an attempt to quickly produce millions of doses of vaccines. You can well bet these companies will turn out as much vaccine as they can as quickly as they can. They are now competing... Trump was wise to promote competition. Another incident of good problem-solving.
"I'd say I'm surprised, but you didn't understand that there is Covid-19 relief funding and there is a government appropriations bill. In your last post, you thought they were one in the same. So, when I point out that Trump just vetoed a bill where Congress gave him what his administration asked for in his budget request as an example of his horrible governing skills, I figured you'd be able to keep up with that."
Ha! You could make several omelets with all the egg on my face.
When I spoke of not checking out the details, (and snarkily asked if you had), I was being honest. I was speaking from the knowledge of media blurbs I had heard. Look where that got me.
But, (yep, you know I always have one), the "package" bill you speak of may be the reason for my, (and many others), confusion of what was included in the Relief Bill. You are right that in essence, they were separate bills, (and separately approved bills in the House, but approved as one bill in the Senate), yet they were presented for presidential signature as one bill. That doesn't absolve me of sloppy research, but it might be a mitigating consideration in my sentencing.
I will wait until I can find a way out of this hole I have dug for myself before I reply to the vaccine segment of your comment.
You're not alone in that mistake. The way Trump presented it to his followers confused a great many of them. And many didn't realize he was railing against the very things he asked for in his annual appropriations budget that he presented to Congress. Like I tried to point out earlier in this thread - he asked Congress for things, they approved them, then he goes to the media to complain about getting those things that he asked for. Worst governing ever.
Now if we can just get his followers to realize he did the same thing with the election that he did to them with the relief bill - used the media to confuse them into believing something that wasn't remotely true - maybe we can stay a democracy.
This is what a reasonable republican who has the cohones to call out Trump's incompetence looks like. Hope there are more that join him in speaking truth to power:
Today's post on Trump's social media accounts:
“Breaking News: In Pennsylvania there were 205,000 more votes than there were voters. This alone flips the state to President Trump.”
The facts: 9,011,000 registered voters in the state. Biden got 3,459,923. Trump got 3,378,263. Jorgensen got 79,397. Total who voted - 6,917,583.
Just the latest false claim from Trump about fraud. Wake up, he's lying to you and hoping you're not smart enough to check what he's telling you. The sad part about that post is that some 98,000 people shared it on Facebook without knowing it was complete BS.
It was an interesting exercise when I noted the actual voter tallies to someone who shared Trump's above post to their facebook page.
'You are the one of the sheep.'
'Grow a pair of balls.'
'Take off your blindfold we need to drain the swamp the Liberals are out of control we need to take our country back.'
Some people are so far gone, even in the face of simple truths.
This is the other big post going around right wing circles today. The 133 million figure is about 106 million light. The accurate figure is 239 million registered voters.
The meme says there were 133 M registered voters.
Valeant says there were 239 M registered voters.
The census bureau, as of 2018, says there were 153,066,000 registered voters.
Both the bureau and Valeant could be right...if the number of registered voters increased by 40% in 2 years. Unlikely, IMO.
Who (and what) to believe? Other sources seem to congregate around the 157-160 M number - I think I will throw out the meme and Valeant as sources. Neither one gave any supporting evidence, after all, and the 160M seems in line with population growth and the 4 year fight by the left to divide America into "them" and "us" by vilifying the President selected by the people.
It looks like Valeant's number was for eligible voters, not registered voters.
It appears I did as well. I'll take some of that egg from GA.
In the six swing states (Wisc., PA, Mich., GA, Ari., and Nev.), total registered voters as of November of 2020 was 34,400,756. A little higher actually if you consider that Wisconsin allows same-day registration and some 12% voted same day in previous elections. So their eligible voters need to be factored in and that adds nearly a million to the potential registered.
Biden won 12,744,091 of that, Trump took 12,431,729.
With other candidates, the turnout rate was around 72-73% in those six states.
After checking the State's Secretary of State sites, the grand total of registered voters in the 2020 election was around 216 million voters.
133 million registered voters in the USA look a bit like an understatement in a population of 325 million.
by Sharlee 4 weeks ago
America is known to be a free country, a country that is free to cover the news — not to cover up the news that they perhaps find does not suit their given agenda. Yet, that’s precisely what many journalists did in the final few weeks before the presidential election. Let's take a time...
by Jack Lee 2 months ago
There is a lot of new information that came out recently....October surprise.Some of it was old news but some new revelations about the Biden family...with his son Hunter and his laptop and emails...All very troubling if true.Here is the $64K question.Do you trust Joe Biden enough to be President?...
by Sharlee 3 months ago
House speaker says --"Trump would 'belittle' the presidential debates"Pelosi says Biden shouldn't debate Trump: "I wouldn't legitimize a conversation with him""House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested openly Thursday that former Vice President Joe Biden cancel his three...
by Yves 5 months ago
Will Biden's Party choose to keep him out of the debates rather than have him go through the rigors of elucidating his public policy proposals, etc., in a formal debate against Trump, in lieu of recent polls in which up to 55% of Democrat voters believe Joe Biden may be in the early stages of...
by ga anderson 20 months ago
Joe Biden becomes 20th Democratic candidate.*click to watchI think the content of the video was a smart move.GA
by Readmikenow 2 days ago
Do Democrats believe all their problems are over now that they've successfully gotten an illegitimate president and vice president in office?I think they have no idea of the problems that are going to be coming their way.Millions of Americans, and myself included, believe harris and Beijing biden...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|