We'll let POTUS know later
-
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
Link to videothe office deserves is much much much more important than the man holding it
Exactly.
Act accoriding to the office, not the man. Do what's right, not because you hate the man, but because it's fucking right.
Yeah - which is my main beef with Trump. He grade school antics are below the office.
So, if Sobel had said "Fuck you!" to Winters, you'd be OK with that, even if Winters was an asshole?
-
@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 02:44 last edited by@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?
-
@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?
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 02:54 last edited by@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
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 02:57 last edited by
Stop staring at your navel. You don't get it, and you never will.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 02:59 last edited by
@Larry said in We'll let POTUS know later:
Stop staring at your navel. You don't get it, and you never will.
Maybe the orange spirit will speak to me directly some day.
-
@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?
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:02 last edited by jon-nyc@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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:04 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:05 last edited by
I have a thread where I showed the polling and the WSJ article discussing the statement.
-
@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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:13 last edited by@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
I didn’t make that case.
No, but you made the converse:
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:15 last edited by
Yep, which I just explained.
-
@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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:16 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:17 last edited by jon-nyc
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.
-
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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:19 last edited by George K@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
Not letting Trump announce it was justified on public health grounds.
And announcing it 24 hours later was? I don't understand. What public health was jeopardized?
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:21 last edited by
George I don’t follow.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:23 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
George I don’t follow.
You said that not letting Trump know was justified because it would jeopardize public health (paraphrasing here). How is that?
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:23 last edited by
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..
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:24 last edited by jon-nyc
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.
-
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..
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:25 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:26 last edited by jon-nyc
So to recap - they were justified in not telling him because of the risk he’d announce it.
I agree that telling Biden and not Trump was disrespectful.
I’m not sure if there’s anything we disagree on at this point.
