We'll let POTUS know later
-
@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.
-
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.
Where is the point where disrespect for the man justifies disrespect for the office?
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.
Where is the point where disrespect for the man justifies disrespect for the office?
We’re getting deep into the analogy here.
I don’t think disrespect for the office is ever good.
But disrespect for the office can only really be shown by people, entities, or things that are important to the office. (In this case - a private company showed disrespect by not communicating it’s national security/safety gamer changer to the entity in charge of national security).
Perhaps showing physical disrespect to the President himself if you’re in a direct interaction with him?
I dunno - it can be fuzzy
-
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
What's that, if I may ask.
What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
What's that, if I may ask.
Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.
What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?
I didn’t make that case.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
What's that, if I may ask.
Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.
What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?
I didn’t make that case.
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
What's that, if I may ask.
Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.
What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?
I didn’t make that case.
Bull shit. Pure democrat talking point.
-
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
What's that, if I may ask.
Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.
What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?
I didn’t make that case.
-
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
What's that, if I may ask.
Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.
What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?
I didn’t make that case.
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.
I don't disagree with any of your comments, but, like @xenon , you're justifying Pfizer's behavior (which you earlier commented was inappropriate) on Trump's past behavior. One bad actor doesn't justify another.
-
Not letting Trump announce it was justified on public health grounds. Telling Biden and not Trump was disrespectful to Trump since he is the sitting president.
-
I explained how Trump tainted the process by subordinating safety concerns to his election self-interest.
You make think that’s unfair, but it’s empirically supported, and already affected the behavior of all the major pharmaceutical companies..
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I explained how Trump tainted the process by subordinating safety concerns to his election self-interest.
You make think that’s unfair, but it’s empirically supported, and already affected the behavior of all the major pharmaceutical companies..
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
I explained how Trump tainted the process by subordinating safety concerns to his election self-interest.
And I explained how his bad behavior doesn't justify Pfizer's bad behavior - "Mom..."
I don't disagree with his bad behavior analysis. I'm simply saying that to justify Pfizer's bad behavior in that context is no better.
-
Sorry the missing link is that I don’t think Pfizer could reasonably trust Trump not to announce it if they let him know in advance.
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
I don’t think Pfizer could reasonably trust Trump not to announce it if they let him know in advance.
OK - so they let Biden know on Sunday, and let Trump know it via the press.
Is that what you're saying? 24 hours would have made a difference in anything?
Nope, this was purely spite and disrespect. Exactly what everyone accuses Trump of, though in a more subtle way.
