Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

hotmail.com

Water John wrote: »

Biden had consulted Fauci and his own Covid team, so it's no stunt, just a measure to have real impact. Sadly. the US had to wait until Jan 20th for a responsible adult to be in charge again.

Other than mask usage for 100 days, which is already in place anyway, what new measures can we expect from Biden?

TomOnBoard

hotmail.com wrote: »

Issue is whether Biden is going to respect medical advice or go on solo runs advising the public to wear masks for 100 days as soon as he enters office.

Even though mask usage is very high in the big cities.

Wud ya ever give over with yer ould belligerent, truth-twisting ****e?

You've spent 4 years covering for a crook and liar, demonised reasonable people and their logic-based arguments, and basically prostituted ANY intellectual capital you might otherwise have had, in servitude to a cult and a RICO- inspired attempt to take down the very democracy that USED TO underpin the U.S. of A. When you demonstrate an iota of objectivity, not ****e straight out of Q-Anan, OANN and the Hannity/Carlson wings of Fox News, I'll be interested to analyse something/ANYTHING Biden-related that you might offer..

TomOnBoard

hotmail.com wrote: »

No controversy can be generated by me.

Just wondering was Biden's pledge based on medical advice or not?

I call Bull****!

That's EXACTLY what you're trying to do! Create controversy and derail the thread.

Not inteterested here, m8!!!

hotmail.com

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Wud ya ever give over with yer ould belligerent, truth-twisting ****e?

You've spent 4 years covering for a crook and liar, demonised reasonable people and their logic-based arguments, and basically prostituted ANY intellectual capital you might otherwise have had, in servitude to a cult and a RICO- inspired attempt to take down the very democracy that USED TO underpin the U.S. of A. When you demonstrate an iota of objectivity, not ****e straight out of Q-Anan, OANN and the Hannity/Carlson wings of Fox News, I'll be interested to analyse something/ANYTHING Biden-related that you might offer..

First of all, I've never watched Fox News in my life.

Secondly, I'm Irish and have no interest in American democracy or whatever they call it over there.

Thirdly, Trump is gone now. He's over.

And lastly, no response to whether or not Biden is following advice from medical advisors regarding this 100 day pledge.

hotmail.com

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I call Bull****!

That's EXACTLY what you're trying to do! Create controversy and derail the thread.

Not inteterested here, m8!!!

The sensitivity of some posters here to simple queries amazes me. You have become so obsessed with Trump, you can't even think straight.

Presidents come and go, but America never changes.

Water John

This President doesn't want to go, even though the people have asked him to.

hotmail.com

Water John wrote: »

This President doesn't want to go, even though the people have asked him to.

He's sensitive too. But he's gone. It's over. The Trump drama has ended.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

First of all, I've never watched Fox News in my life.

Secondly, I'm Irish and have no interest in American democracy or whatever they call it over there.

Thirdly, Trump is gone now. He's over.

And lastly, no response to whether or not Biden is following advice from medical advisors regarding this 100 day pledge.

You're inordinately active in threads like this to attempt pretty lame and nonsensical arguments on a weekly basis. Often it's an argument along the lines of "why are you guys so interested in another country's politics" but at the very same time, you regularly seem to post in them...

Brian?

hotmail.com wrote: »

No controversy can be generated by me.

Just wondering was Biden's pledge based on medical advice or not?

Wearing masks - yes absolutely.

100 days? Who knows, why does it matter? If Biden can convince enough people to wear masks for 100 days it will lower transmission rates and maybe give some respite along with the vaccine. After 100 days there should be enough data to tell the story to those refusing to wear masks. It all seems pretty sensible to me.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're inordinately active in threads like this to attempt pretty lame and nonsensical arguments on a weekly basis. Often it's an argument along the lines of "why are you guys so interested in another country's politics" but at the very same time, you regularly seem to post in them...

I'm just not sure why people can't say Biden's mask pledge wasn't based on advice from medical advisors.

It's going to be a long 4 years it seems.

duploelabs

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm just not sure why people can't say Biden's mask pledge wasn't based on advice from medical advisors.

It's going to be a long 4 years it seems.

Why is it important?

Water John

Hotmail just trolling at this point. I informed you that Biden made the mask wearing decision having consulted his Covid team and Dr. Fauci.
You come back later and imply it not to be the case and that no poster had said it was.

moon2

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm just not sure why people can't say Biden's mask pledge wasn't based on advice from medical advisors.

It's going to be a long 4 years it seems.

I'll say it then - Bidens drive to increase the usage of masks is based on medical advice!

Done and done!

If you have some reason to doubt this, could you elaborate on exactly what your issue is and the effects stemming from it?

It's easy to do with Trump's policies: Trump has politicized mask wearing into a pro-Trump/Republican non-wearing contingent and an anti-Trump/anti-freedom/Democrat mask wearing contingent.

The issues stemming from this false equivalence are pretty clear and obvious. Your political affiliation should have no bearing on how you handle a pandemic. Not taking simple precautions shouldn't be seen as a badge of support for your political party.

A 9/11 daily is the price america (as a whole) is paying for rejecting medical advice.

An actual drive to increase the use of precautions can only be heralded as a massive step forward. It's really unclear what your position is on this, but you seem to be implying that this is a bad move unsupported by medical advice... Which is confusing.

Brussels Sprout

I wonder when Biden takes office will we revert back to the Obama-era whereby the media will revert to turning any perceived faux-pas into a minor scandal.

The two classics of the genre:

The Barack Obama tan suit controversy occurred on August 28, 2014, when Barack Obama, then–President of the United States, wore a tan suit while he held a live press conference on increasing the U.S. military response against the Islamic State in Syria. Obama's appearance on television in the tan suit sparked significant attention and led to media and social media criticism. The issue remained prominent in the media for several days with the issue being particularly widely discussed on talk shows

The latest round of outrage aimed at President Obama was caused by his morning caffeine fix.
When the president exited Marine One in New York City Tuesday en route to the United Nations, he had a coffee cup in his right hand as he lifted it to salute the two Marines who greeted him there. This gesture, according to all those who took to Twitter using the hashtag, #LatteSalute was just downright disrespectful.

ancapailldorcha

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I wonder when Biden takes office will we revert back to the Obama-era whereby the media will revert to turning any perceived faux-pas into a minor scandal.

The two classics of the genre:

Of course but I also expect the GOP and Republicans to start pretending to care about the national debt, American lives and fiscal prudence again.

rossie1977

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I wonder when Biden takes office will we revert back to the Obama-era whereby the media will revert to turning any perceived faux-pas into a minor scandal.

The two classics of the genre:

Already happened. Biden picked an all female press team and Trump fans here trying to make it out to be worst thing ever.. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058138295

duploelabs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course but I also expect the GOP and Republicans to start pretending to care about the national debt, American lives and fiscal prudence again.

And accountability and checks and balances for the office of the president

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Already happened. Biden picked an all female press team and Trump fans here trying to make it out to be worst thing ever.. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058138295

Also ignoring how they're highly qualified for the roles...

hotmail.com

rossie1977 wrote: »

Already happened. Biden picked an all female press team and Trump fans here trying to make it out to be worst thing ever.. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058138295

Spin doctors they used to be called. Women or not, they do all the dirty work.

It also deflects from Biden's unsettling touchy feely approach to women.

duploelabs

hotmail.com wrote: »

Spin doctors they used to be called. Women or not, they do all the dirty work.

It also deflects from Biden's unsettling touchy feely approach to women.

As opposed to walking into changing rooms of teenaged girls unannounced

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

Spin doctors they used to be called. Women or not, they do all the dirty work.

It also deflects from Biden's unsettling touchy feely approach to women.

"Grab em by the pussy"

Donald J Trump.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

Spin doctors they used to be called. Women or not, they do all the dirty work.

It also deflects from Biden's unsettling touchy feely approach to women.

I hate whataboutery, but that's an incredibly bad read given the previous guys near production line of sexual misconduct litigation. Plainly obvious the picks are attempts at inclusion, rather than some dark misdirect from salacious chronic harassment. Your faith made more redundant when by all accounts the picks seem pretty experienced and appropriate.

looksee

hotmail.com wrote: »

Spin doctors they used to be called. Women or not, they do all the dirty work.

It also deflects from Biden's unsettling touchy feely approach to women.

Yes, Trump's sterling efforts will be missed...

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2017/04/25/430969/100-days-100-ways-trump-administration-harming-women-families/

and his comments...

On Ivanka Trump, his daughter

42. "She does have a very nice figure ... if [she] weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." [June 4, 2004]

https://theweek.com/articles/655770/61-things-donald-trump-said-about-women

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I hate whataboutery, but that's an incredibly bad read given the previous guys near production line of sexual misconduct litigation. Plainly obvious the picks are attempts at inclusion, rather than some dark misdirect from salacious chronic harassment. Your faith made more redundant when by all accounts the picks seem pretty experienced and appropriate.

I would say a mix of inclusion but also the fact that they're proven as suitable for roles. It's logical that it would be a team that they've previously worked with.

Water John

Biden/Harris in their first interview both emphasised at different points about policy said,'one president', meaning Trump is still Potus. The counter could also be the point that they're making that come after the inauguration there is still only one President and that's President Biden.
There's seem some incl Trump who are implying a sort of shadow presidential role for Trump.

looksee

Water John wrote: »

Biden/Harris in their first interview both emphasised at different points about policy said,'one president', meaning Trump is still Potus. The counter could also be the point that they're making that come after the inauguration there is still only one President and that's President Biden.
There's seem some incl Trump who are implying a sort of shadow presidential role for Trump.

I haven't seen that, beyond a kind of conspiracy theory thing where Trump was somehow pulling the strings with Biden as a front. No explanation why in that case Trump would not rule in his own right.

However, are there any links to the shadow king notion? I think my brain might explode...

duploelabs

Water John wrote: »

There's seem some incl Trump who are implying a sort of shadow presidential role for Trump.

'I'm off to make my own presidential office, except this time with blackjack and hookers'

Seriously though, sedition laws would have him locked up in an instant if he tried that

Water John

It means he goes on to with his cult followers, undermining Biden's Presidency, in their eyes.

looksee

So Trump goes back to private life but continues with his 'rallies' on some pretext or another - preparing for re-election maybe - and continues to drop big, obvious hints that he is still running the country but Biden is his 'front man', and the base lap it up. Though it might be difficult to balance out what Biden actually does with what Trump claims he has proposed.

I suppose since the base is politically unaware they would probably not even notice, and the tame media outlets will be happy to spread the fantasy regardless. Its unlikely there would be enough of a base after 4 years to make a further presidential challenge viable though.

Way more likely that his current lack of energy, shortage of funds and preoccupation with all the legal stuff that will come his way will mean he will fade away into relative obscurity.

ancapailldorcha

No more sniping at other users please. Posts deleted.

FreudianSlippers

hotmail.com wrote: »

Other than mask usage for 100 days, which is already in place anyway, what new measures can we expect from Biden?

Unless you know otherwise, I don't believe there is any Federal mask mandate in place at the moment?

FreudianSlippers

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm just not sure why people can't say Biden's mask pledge wasn't based on advice from medical advisors.

Biden made his mask announcement at the same time he introduced his administration's health team, amongst others:
Dr Anthony Fauci (physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984)
Dr. Vivek Murthy (physician and former vice admiral in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps who served as the nineteenth surgeon general of the United State)
Dr. Rochelle Walensky (chief of the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital)
Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith (physician and associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Yale School of Medicine, where she is also Associate Dean for Health Equity Research and founding director of the Equity Research and Innovation Center)

So those are the people who advised him... his advisors.

Manic Moran

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Unless you know otherwise, I don't believe there is any Federal mask mandate in place at the moment?

There is not, nor will there ever be. There is no legal authority to place one. (Which is why Harris had to walk back on comments about a national mandate in Sept)

He will be encouraging mask wear for the first 100 days of his administration. Mandates come from the states and local governments, most of which already have them.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is not, nor will there ever be. There is no legal authority to place one. (Which is why Harris had to walk back on comments about a national mandate in Sept)

He will be encouraging mask wear for the first 100 days of his administration. Mandates come from the states and local governments, most of which already have them.

Which is why Biden said he would ask everyone to wear a mask, no order everyone.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

Which is why Biden said he would ask everyone to wear a mask, no order everyone.

That is his current (and correct) position. You need to go back a few months for the reversal.
https://www.insider.com/harris-walks-back-biden-promise-federal-mandate-to-wear-mask-2020-9

Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, walked back Joe Biden's promise for a nationwide mandate to wear a mask, saying the Biden administration will instead enforce a standard of mask-wearing.

Last month, Biden vowed that, if elected, his administration would institute and push for a mask mandate.

"We'll have a national mandate to wear a mask — not as a burden, but to protect each other," Biden said during the final night of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a patriotic duty."

Then a few days later https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/06/harris-walks-back-national-mask-mandate-says-it-would-be-a-standard/?sh=486ddfc920ee

Asked in June if he would use “federal leverage” to mandate mask wearing, Biden said he would “would do everything possible to make it a requirement” from an “executive standpoint.”
[...]
But during a press conference on Wednesday, Biden stepped back from that position, conceding he doesn’t know whether a mask mandate by executive fiat would be constitutional and calling himself a “constitutionalist,” instead saying he would put “pressure” on state, local and business leaders.

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is his current (and correct) position. You need to go back a few months for the reversal.
https://www.insider.com/harris-walks-back-biden-promise-federal-mandate-to-wear-mask-2020-9

Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, walked back Joe Biden's promise for a nationwide mandate to wear a mask, saying the Biden administration will instead enforce a standard of mask-wearing.

Last month, Biden vowed that, if elected, his administration would institute and push for a mask mandate.

"We'll have a national mandate to wear a mask — not as a burden, but to protect each other," Biden said during the final night of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a patriotic duty."

Then a few days later https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/06/harris-walks-back-national-mask-mandate-says-it-would-be-a-standard/?sh=486ddfc920ee

Asked in June if he would use “federal leverage” to mandate mask wearing, Biden said he would “would do everything possible to make it a requirement” from an “executive standpoint.”
[...]
But during a press conference on Wednesday, Biden stepped back from that position, conceding he doesn’t know whether a mask mandate by executive fiat would be constitutional and calling himself a “constitutionalist,” instead saying he would put “pressure” on state, local and business leaders.

What in the Love of God does all this passage through history have to do with:

- the President-Elect's attempt (even though he is still months away from actually being able to Preside) to save lives
- the President-Elect's attempt to counter the incumbent's blatant sociopathic attempts to propagate Covid by undermining professional mask-wearing advice
- the President-Elect's attempt to bring some kind of order into the current massively fatal and hugely debilitating Covid-19 landscape.

Get a grip! Biden's trying to turn the tanker that is anti-maskism around in the only way he can. Your 'history lesson' is entirely un-necessary in that endeavour.

This thread is about the Biden/Harris Presidency going forward. It is NOT about the election, and/or the primaries and political activities that preceeded it! There are more than enough threads around this place that can house historical analyses such as yours.

Manic Moran

Nothing. Which is fortunate because that was not the question asked. What was asked was whether there was a federal mandate currently in place (see post #238). Then as a result of post #241, further expansion was provided.

I firmly believe that an answer to a question should also be substantiated. If you don’t want to read why an answer is put forward, or if you don’t want the history or civics lesson, it doesn’t cost you much to scroll down.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nothing. Which is fortunate because that was not the question asked. What was asked was whether there was a federal mandate currently in place (see post #238). Then as a result of post #241, further expansion was provided.

I firmly believe that an answer to a question should also be substantiated. If you don’t want to read why an answer is put forward, or if you don’t want the history or civics lesson, it doesn’t cost you much to scroll down.

I didn't ask that question and you replied to me.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

I didn't ask that question and you replied to me.

I did, because you replied to my response to the question. Why would this be remarkable?

My point is that the details of what the federal government can do are sufficiently confusing that even a Presidential candidate can slip up and have to be corrected by his lawyer VP running mate, let alone Irish people on a discussion board.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I did, because you replied to my response to the question. Why would this be remarkable?

My point is that the details of what the federal government can do are sufficiently confusing that even a Presidential candidate can slip up and have to be corrected by his lawyer VP running mate, let alone Irish people on a discussion board.

My point was that Biden is asking people to wear masks, not ordering. Because he can’t order it.

So fundamentally we are in agreement, but your response read like a rebuttal.

ExMachina1000

Brian? wrote: »

My point was that Biden is asking people to wear masks, not ordering. Because he can’t order it.

So fundamentally we are in agreement, but your response read like a rebuttal.

Can he order it once he becomes president?

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Can he order it once he becomes president?

No, he can suggest it but it will be up to each individual state to legislate and police it.

ExMachina1000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No

Once president can he not override states individual powers on health related grounds to bring in lockdowns , mask wearing indoors etc
Everything that's needed to bring the virus under control?

Brian?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Once president can he not override states individual powers on health related grounds to bring in lockdowns , mask wearing indoors etc
Everything that's needed to bring the virus under control?

You know full well be can't.

What he can do is lead by example and ensure the correct message is sent. Unlike Trump.

He can also order enough vaccine. Unlike Trump.

astrofool

Brian? wrote: »

You know full well be can't.

What he can do is lead by example and ensure the correct message is sent. Unlike Trump.

He can also order enough vaccine. Unlike Trump.

Any word on everybody getting access to the regeneron treatment? Have the current administration started getting deals in place, and getting it to hospitals to reduce the numbers dying daily?

ExMachina1000

Brian? wrote: »

You know full well be can't.

Apologies. I was under the illusion that he could since Trump was expected to do same.

Funny how the narrative changes.

Water John

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Apologies. I was under the illusion that he could since Trump was expected to do same.

Funny how the narrative changes.

Now that's pathetic.
BTW do you fully accept that Biden has been voted to be the next POTUS? I know the EC votes tomorrow so to be technically correct you can answer on Tuesday.

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Apologies. I was under the illusion that he could since Trump was expected to do same.

Funny how the narrative changes.

People listen to the president. Trump could not have ridiculed and politicised mask wearing, and thus could have save lives, but he didn't

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

People listen to the president. Trump could not have ridiculed and politicised mask wearing, and thus could have save lives, but he didn't

Weak.

Posters argued for months that Trump had the power to supersede state law. Now the story changes with incoming Joe Biden.

I'm not posting in favour of Trump btw. I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy

TomOnBoard

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Apologies. I was under the illusion that he could since Trump was expected to do same.

Funny how the narrative changes.

Frankly, your thinly disguised attempt at a 'gotcha' moment is pathetic. There are ample other threads where such attempts may be appropriate, but this isn't one of them.

This is a thread about new hope and sensible Government now that adults will be back in the room from January 20. It's no longer about a failed narcissistic pretend-King who has lost (bigly) not only the Presidency, but also any modicum of respect that the Office normally engenders. The incoming President will be working to alleviate the damage that has been done to Public Health messaging by the failed Administration, and will be providing leadership and example that will try to pitch Americans in common purpose against the virus, rather than the current tactic of using the virus to pitch Americans against themselves.