Joe Biden Presidency thread Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21

Melanchthon · 25-01-2021 2:22am

Overheal wrote: »

Nope. The 7 day average on 1/20 was 912k, and that's generous since that's inauguration day, the day prior to that the average was 807k. So however you pick the day, It's either 8.8% or 19.3% short of the mark, not 2%. This is from the link you supplied.

Never mind the timing of when the pledge was made: January 15, 2021. The rolling average was 844.4k and the rollout had been inconsistent. Indeed, the day after the pledge was made, under Trump doses fell from 1.1M that day to 708k the next day, 635.7k the day after that, and 400.8k the day after that, demonstrating empirically that it's not all that simple really to maintain 1M doses per day once you hit that threshold for 2 days in a row, as had been done on 1/14 and 1/15; and the 2 previous days, 1/13 and 1/12, were under 1M doses as well despite 1/11 meeting the threshold.

So to reiterate it's dishonest to imply this is only a matter of 2%, and no, Trump was not doing 'a good job.' The man literally had no plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyN5NBlH-jY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RmMnPCvUgo

Ok so we will take the rolling average figure, that means all Biden is promising is a 15% increase.

You consider that Trump wasn't doing a good job delivering the vaccine?

Look at the UK graph I provided, that's the sort of scaling up you should be looking at if your working from a low start.

So either Trump was doing ok job at delivering the vaccine (so out of the stage where you get the big increases) or Biden has promised only a 15% increase taking average figure.
That's pretty poor don't you think. Actually your obviously following this closely, if we draw continue the curve of vaccination under Trump, where does the graph point to ?

Overheal · 25-01-2021 2:27am

Melanchthon wrote: »

"His grand plan is to increase the rate by 1% haha"

If you can't see that your not being honest.

Overheal wrote: »

In that chart, 6 days out of 35 had 1M doses administered. In such time we've seen logistical shortages, even deliberate destruction of doses, and situations where doses have expired before patients could be found to give them to under the Trump administration's lack of any plan. The 6 days also were not consecutive, and the variance between individual days is large: on 1/10 there were 293k vaccinations, the next day there was 1.3M and the day after that was 675k and a week from there we had a day where only 401k were given. Calling it a 1% increase as you have, is a tad dishonest.

Melanchthon wrote: »

The goal he has set for is less than 2 percent increase if we count the week previous, and for if we look a bit further back it's still a small increase, it's incredibly conservative.

Melanchthon wrote: »

Ok so we will take the rolling average figure, that means all Biden is promising is a 15% increase.

You consider that Trump wasn't doing a good job delivering the vaccine?

Look at the UK graph I provided, that's the sort of scaling up you should be looking at if your working from a low start.

So either Trump was doing ok job at delivering the vaccine (so out of the stage where you get the big increases) or Biden has promised only a 15% increase taking average figure.
That's pretty poor don't you think. Actually your obviously following this closely, if we draw continue the curve of vaccination under Trump, where does the graph point to ?

I'm satisfied that I've demonstrated your dishonest argument.

Melanchthon · 25-01-2021 2:39am

Overheal wrote: »

I'm satisfied that I've demonstrated your dishonest argument.

You really really haven't, take a look at this graph, it shows that Bidens promise isn't even above the point it would be if he did nothing and just what was currently happening for a week or two.

Edit: Could grab the vaccination data, plug it into excel and see where it extrapolates to if you are going to argue that the trend line wouldn't be higher than Bidens promise in a week or two anyway

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 2:51am

Overheal wrote: »

I'm satisfied that I've demonstrated your dishonest argument.

i know you're a big dem/pro biden/anti trump/anti repuplican...at least 1 of the above.

what's your thoughts on this:

imagine there were no cameras :eek:

eagle eye · 25-01-2021 3:57am

Biden is only POTUS for a couple of days. He has promised to represent all Americans and not just those who voted for him.
How about everybody gives him a couple of months to deliver on those promises before deciding he isn't doing the job?
I think you'll be surprised by him.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 3:59am

Melanchthon wrote: »

You really really haven't, take a look at this graph, it shows that Bidens promise isn't even above the point it would be if he did nothing and just what was currently happening for a week or two.

Edit: Could grab the vaccination data, plug it into excel and see where it extrapolates to if you are going to argue that the trend line wouldn't be higher than Bidens promise in a week or two anyway

No, it wasn't, which I just spent several posts reiterating. According to your own first link the 7 day rolling average has not made it to 1M and there have only been 6 non consecutive days (3 under Trump, 3 under Biden) where it was 1M+ on those days, to suggest it was in fact over a million "for a week or two" is ever more dishonest argument.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 4:00am

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden is only POTUS for a couple of days. He has promised to represent all Americans and not just those who voted for him.
How about everybody gives him a couple of months to deliver on those promises before deciding he isn't doing the job?
I think you'll be surprised by him.

Generally the purpose of the media/politicians placing special emphasis on the first 100 days of a term.

Melanchthon · 25-01-2021 4:09am

Overheal wrote: »

No, it wasn't, which I just spent several posts reiterating. According to your own first link the 7 day rolling average has not made it to 1M and there have only been 6 non consecutive days (3 under Trump, 3 under Biden) where it was 1M+ on those days, to suggest it was in fact over a million "for a week or two" is ever more dishonest argument.

Look at the graph Overheal, all Biden is promising is something that would have happened with the trend line anyway in a week or two, and if the trend line continued would surpass what he is promising.
So I will state it again, either Biden is promising sweet FA, or Trump did a decent job.
If I do up the excel tomorrow and put an extrapolation or even a simple line and it shows this will you admit one of those two things.

Melanchthon · 25-01-2021 4:11am

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden is only POTUS for a couple of days. He has promised to represent all Americans and not just those who voted for him.
How about everybody gives him a couple of months to deliver on those promises before deciding he isn't doing the job?
I think you'll be surprised by him.

My issue is the promise is way way too conservative and if Trump had promised it the same posters would be having fits. He's literally saying he won't do worse than Trump but the same posters obsessed with Trump won't concede how little Biden is promising.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 4:12am

Melanchthon wrote: »

Look at the graph Overheal

I very much am. Are you?

As I already said:

In that chart, 6 days out of 35 had 1M doses administered. In such time we've seen logistical shortages, even deliberate destruction of doses, and situations where doses have expired before patients could be found to give them to under the Trump administration's lack of any plan. The 6 days also were not consecutive, and the variance between individual days is large: on 1/10 there were 293k vaccinations, the next day there was 1.3M and the day after that was 675k and a week from there we had a day where only 401k were given. Calling it a 1% increase as you have, is a tad dishonest. Suggesting "they were doing that already" is also dishonest - 3 of the 6 1M days in that chart are from after Biden's swearing in! The 7-day rolling average thus was still under 1M doses as of 1/22 (983k).

The 7 day average on 1/20 was 912k, and that's generous since that's inauguration day, the day prior to that the average was 807k. So however you pick the day, It's either 8.8% or 19.3% short of the mark, not 2%. This is from the link you supplied.

Never mind the timing of when the pledge was made: January 15, 2021. The rolling average was 844.4k and the rollout had been inconsistent. Indeed, the day after the pledge was made, under Trump doses fell from 1.1M that day to 708k the next day, 635.7k the day after that, and 400.8k the day after that, demonstrating empirically that it's not all that simple really to maintain 1M doses per day once you hit that threshold for 2 days in a row, as had been done on 1/14 and 1/15; and the 2 previous days, 1/13 and 1/12, were under 1M doses as well despite 1/11 meeting the threshold.

Now you've moved goalposts from "for a week or two" to "in a week or two" - I guess you assume there will be no shortages or supply disruptions. As is shown, the rollout has been incredibly inconsistent. Your non-scandal is that Biden wants a consistent floor of 100M doses in 100 days.

the immortals · 25-01-2021 4:16am

Salute the marines

Overheal · 25-01-2021 4:17am

Melanchthon wrote: »

My issue is the promise is way way too conservative and if Trump had promised it the same posters would be having fits.

So your issue is based on a conjectural hypothetical. Brilliant.

Melanchthon · 25-01-2021 4:23am

Overheal wrote: »

So your issue is based on a conjectural hypothetical. Brilliant.

Either Biden is promising basically nothing is going to change, or Trump did a decent job with the vaccine.

It's pretty simple if you look at the trend line. Since your hyper partisan on this issue you can't admit either though.

Actually here is a good question, how did you did you approve of the rate of increase of vaccination rate under Trump.
Since what Biden is promising is to actually have a lower rate of increase of vaccination rate how do you feel about this?

Will throw up the graph tomorrow with trend lines.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 4:40am

Melanchthon wrote: »

Either Biden is promising basically nothing is going to change, or Trump did a decent job with the vaccine.

That's a false dilemma: Biden is targeting a consistent rollout, with 7 day rolling averages above 1M. Trump didn't get there, Trump had no plan, as already demonstrated in previous posts, so there is no real room to suggest he did a great job with his laissez faire approach, while Biden is engaging with companies and actually invoking the Defense Production Act and not just talking about it and has an actual, bonafide published plan.

It's pretty simple if you look at the trend line. Since your hyper partisan on this issue you can't admit either though.

Not really, the trendline shows it can definitely drop if vaccinations drop. See the big dip after January 15. It has nothing to do with me, but good effort on the argumentum ad hominem.

Actually here is a good question, how did you did you approve of the rate of increase of vaccination rate under Trump.

Already answered. But I will add that Trump promised a vaccine reserve that didn't actually exist. So, no, he doesn't get very high marks at all.

Since what Biden is promising is to actually have a lower rate of increase of vaccination rate how do you feel about this?

You seem to have the impression that the ramp up will, necessarily, continue to trend linearly upward. Nothing really proves that will be the case. Not even covid testing increased at a steady linear rate (and the methods of testing changed over time). There are multiple different vaccine types, and a multitude of failure points from distribution to deliberate sabotage to simply getting butts in seats before they expire because we don't have a 100% consumption rate of the doses. At some point we will saturate our number of vaccination sites and our distribution avenues and the rate of rollout acceleration will taper off, but not before many things could still go wrong that cause wild day to day fluctuations in vaccination rates.

The non-scandal: Biden sets reasonable goal for minimum rate of vaccine rollout.

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 4:54am

biden has signed 30 executive orders a few days in:

Cancels the Keystone XL pipeline: this is natural gas coming down from canada. the cynics think this is due to promises made to pennsylvania to protect their coal production. never mind the environment.

directs agencies to review their actions to ensure racial equity: nonsense, best person for the job. this **** will backfire.
As an aside, does anyone have any idea what racial equity means cos i don't?

Requires non-citizens to be included in the Census and apportionment of congressional representatives i always though the basis was essentially no taxation without representation. this seems to be representation without taxation.

Reverses the Trump administration's restrictions on US entry for passport holders from seven Muslim-majority countries
this one i'll admit i'm confused about. trump hates (hated) muslims apparently but yet didnt block the entry of the 2 most populous muslim countries in the world.

Halts construction of the border wall by terminating the national emergency declaration used to fund it i look forward to how biden will defend the southern border without a physical deterrent.

italics are bidens words. everything else is me

dwayneshintzy · 25-01-2021 5:01am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

biden has signed 30 executive orders a few days in:

Cancels the Keystone XL pipeline: this is natural gas coming down from canada. the cynics think this is due to promises made to pennsylvania to protect their coal production. never mind the environment.

directs agencies to review their actions to ensure racial equity: nonsense, best person for the job. this **** will backfire.
As an aside, does anyone have any idea what racial equity means cos i don't?

Requires non-citizens to be included in the Census and apportionment of congressional representatives i always though the basis was essentially no taxation without representation. this seems to be representation without taxation.

Reverses the Trump administration's restrictions on US entry for passport holders from seven Muslim-majority countries
this one i'll admit i'm confused about. trump hates (hated) muslims apparently but yet didnt block the entry of the 2 most populous muslim countries in the world.

Halts construction of the border wall by terminating the national emergency declaration used to fund it i look forward to how biden will defend the southern border without a physical deterrent.

italics are bidens words. everything else is me

This is just such a nonsense little soundbite you've got. A census is supposed to take measure of the total number of people in an area, of course illegal immigrants should be included. And have you got any notion of the tax-paying rate among undocumented immigrants? Because from your comment, I'd say that it's quite clear you don't.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 5:05am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

biden has signed 30 executive orders a few days in:

Cancels the Keystone XL pipeline: this is natural gas coming down from canada. the cynics think this is due to promises made to pennsylvania to protect their coal production. never mind the environment.

Keystone XL was already being blocked under the Obama admin and I haven't seen anything that suggests it's a backhanded deal for coal miners. The Keystone system has already had numerous oil spills over the years, which they have underreported. The XL line would have run through critical aquifers as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

directs agencies to review their actions to ensure racial equity: nonsense, best person for the job. this **** will backfire.
As an aside, does anyone have any idea what racial equity means cos i don't?

Equity vs. Equality. Essentially could amount to positive discrimination, and very likely to be challenged in court. But, the order does require the agencies to still adhere to applicable law, so perhaps not, and the order would amount to nothing if defeated by anti discrimination law.

Requires non-citizens to be included in the Census and apportionment of congressional representatives i always though the basis was essentially no taxation without representation. this seems to be representation without taxation.

The Census clause says "Counting all persons, except Indians not taxed." Immigrants are persons (and so are Indians). The 14th amendment itself differentiates between a person and a citizen. Trump and the GOP's effort not to count immigrants is about as anti-originalist as you could get when trying to claim to be adhering to the Constitution. "Indians not taxed" explicitly referring to 'Indians of the plains' ie. wild folk who don't live in general society, don't deal in currency, etc. and are otherwise considered out of the scope of US general jurisdiction. Native American (ie. Indians) reservations subsequently don't have representation in Congress, but are tax shelters.

Halts construction of the border wall by terminating the national emergency declaration used to fund it i look forward to how biden will defend the southern border without a physical deterrent.

It ends Trump's ridiculous State of Emergency, done so in order to move around money to fund the wall with taxpayer dollars which otherwise need to be appropriated by Congress. He siphoned the money away from FEMA iirc which is a boneheaded way of doing things (least of all when Mexico is supposed to have paid for it), and the money was given to cronies. It doesn't tear down existing barrier. CBP still exists.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 5:13am

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

This is just such a nonsense little soundbite you've got. A census is supposed to take measure of the total number of people in an area, of course illegal immigrants should be included. And have you got any notion of the tax-paying rate among undocumented immigrants? Because from your comment, I'd say that it's quite clear you don't.

I mean it's an Irish website so I'm not too offended when someone admits they aren't quite sure, as Yoss did. Nothing to browbeat over.

i always though the basis was essentially no taxation without representation.

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 5:22am

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

This is just such a nonsense little soundbite you've got. A census is supposed to take measure of the total number of people in an area, of course illegal immigrants should be included. And have you got any notion of the tax-paying rate among undocumented immigrants? Because from your comment, I'd say that it's quite clear you don't.

maybe it is nonsense, maybe not. i always thought a census was to get the population of a country. i never knew it was designed to get the illegal population as well (as in, can you rely on the data provided by an illegal? christian? if illegal, i'd select mormon).
data useless

i mean, how can someone illegal complete a federal/state document

do i have any clue of the amount of tax illegals pay? i know the IRS estimates how much they lose to the illegal drug trade, so the totality must be well over and beyond that.

could you tell me so that i am more informed in the future?

dwayneshintzy · 25-01-2021 5:32am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

maybe it is nonsense, maybe not. i always thought a census was to get the population of a country. i never knew it was designed to get the illegal population as well (as in, can you rely on the data provided by an illegal? christian? if illegal, i'd select mormon).
data useless

i mean, how can someone illegal complete a federal/state document

do i have any clue of the amount of tax illegals pay? i know the IRS estimates how much they lose to the illegal drug trade, so the totality must be well over and beyond that.

could you tell me so that i am more informed in the future?

Sorry, but I don't understand what point it is you're raising here?

The CBO estimates that between 50-75% of undocumented immigrants pay state or federal taxes.

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 5:53am

Overheal wrote: »

Keystone XL was already being blocked under the Obama admin and I haven't seen anything that suggests it's a backhanded deal for coal miners. The Keystone system has already had numerous oil spills over the years, which they have underreported. The XL line would have run through critical aquifers as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Equity vs. Equality. Essentially could amount to positive discrimination, and very likely to be challenged in court. But, the order does require the agencies to still adhere to applicable law, so perhaps not, and the order would amount to nothing if defeated by anti discrimination law.

The Census clause says "Counting all persons, except Indians not taxed." Immigrants are persons (and so are Indians). The 14th amendment itself differentiates between a person and a citizen. Trump and the GOP's effort not to count immigrants is about as anti-originalist as you could get when trying to claim to be adhering to the Constitution. "Indians not taxed" explicitly referring to 'Indians of the plains' ie. wild folk who don't live in general society, don't deal in currency, etc. and are otherwise considered out of the scope of US general jurisdiction. Native American (ie. Indians) reservations subsequently don't have representation in Congress, but are tax shelters.

It ends Trump's ridiculous State of Emergency, done so in order to move around money to fund the wall with taxpayer dollars which otherwise need to be appropriated by Congress. He siphoned the money away from FEMA iirc which is a boneheaded way of doing things (least of all when Mexico is supposed to have paid for it), and the money was given to cronies. It doesn't tear down existing barrier. CBP still exists.

the pipeline: would have resulted in cheaper fuel to the US. with that gone, the coal refineries are back on the burner. as in, why block that but at the same time allow coal refineries to keep going?

re Equity vs. Equality:discrimination is discrimination. i suppose it depends upon joe's definition of racial equity. imagine he mandated that in the NBA? i'm 5"7.5. i dont belong there. thats a fact. lets equalise on height? lets equalise on weight? lets equalise on eye colour? you cant preach equality, and only apply that to a subset that suits you.

re voting: i'm not talking about indians. i am talking about me. no way should my voice be counted in any us election. i'm here illegally. mad to think that..lets all just arrive in england and vote. it makes no sense.

re the wall: trump did a cost benefit analysis i presume. now california has to deal with that.

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 6:04am

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't understand what point it is you're raising here?

The CBO estimates that between 50-75% of undocumented immigrants pay state or federal taxes.

the amount of lost revenue (tax) from illegal drug dealers.

Lost revenue due to illegal drugs = X
Lost revenue due to illegal drugs + illegal workers = X + something

lets split the difference and say 12.5% dont pay any state or federal taxes. whats the average annual state tax?
lets also presume that illegals pay both, i notice you say or

Cody montana · 25-01-2021 8:11am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the pipeline: would have resulted in cheaper fuel to the US. with that gone, the coal refineries are back on the burner. as in, why block that but at the same time allow coal refineries to keep going?

re Equity vs. Equality:discrimination is discrimination. i suppose it depends upon joe's definition of racial equity. imagine he mandated that in the NBA? i'm 5"7.5. i dont belong there. thats a fact. lets equalise on height? lets equalise on weight? lets equalise on eye colour? you cant preach equality, and only apply that to a subset that suits you.

re voting: i'm not talking about indians. i am talking about me. no way should my voice be counted in any us election. i'm here illegally. mad to think that..lets all just arrive in england and vote. it makes no sense.

re the wall: trump did a cost benefit analysis i presume. now california has to deal with that.

Coal is in the way out too.
Green renewable energy is the future.

25-01-2021 9:24am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the amount of lost revenue (tax) from illegal drug dealers.

Lost revenue due to illegal drugs = X
Lost revenue due to illegal drugs + illegal workers = X + something

lets split the difference and say 12.5% dont pay any state or federal taxes. whats the average annual state tax?
lets also presume that illegals pay both, i notice you say or

Why exactly are you bringing drug dealing into this at all? Illegal immigrants pay about 13 billion in taxes each year. You previously claimed they don't pay taxes, that's categorically untrue.

On top of that, you have made up claims about the Keystone pipeline. It's almost as if you're arguing in bad faith.

Butson · 25-01-2021 9:34am

There is a serious difference between racial equality, and racial equity.
This will backfire on him massively. I wouldn't expect any of our sheepish media here to delve into it any further.

sydthebeat · 25-01-2021 9:57am

Did yossar just out himself as a drug dealer???

extra gravy · 25-01-2021 9:59am

sydthebeat wrote: »

Did yossar just out himself as a drug dealer???

Judging by some of his posts, I'd say he's been sampling the merchandise.

Overheal · 25-01-2021 1:14pm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the pipeline: would have resulted in cheaper fuel to the US. with that gone, the coal refineries are back on the burner. as in, why block that but at the same time allow coal refineries to keep going?

His freeze on new leases extends to oil and coal as well.

re Equity vs. Equality:discrimination is discrimination. i suppose it depends upon joe's definition of racial equity. imagine he mandated that in the NBA? i'm 5"7.5. i dont belong there. thats a fact. lets equalise on height? lets equalise on weight? lets equalise on eye colour? you cant preach equality, and only apply that to a subset that suits you.

Good questions that I guess we will need to revisit when this starts to take on more tangible form

re voting: i'm not talking about indians. i am talking about me. no way should my voice be counted in any us election. i'm here illegally. mad to think that..lets all just arrive in england and vote. it makes no sense.

There seems to be confusion there: being enumerated in the census does not entitle one to be a voter in a federal election. It is for the purposes of representation. A president is the president for all persons within US jurisdiction, subsequently electors are apportioned among the states by the count of the whole number of persons in each state. Native Americans were even all later naturalized by subsequent acts of congress. Similar to electors the House of Representatives is apportioned in the same general manner. A representative represents all the persons in their district, however only citizens may vote for them. That is the populous side of the bicameral legislature, with the Senate comprising of 2 senators from every State, which also cannot be voted for by non citizens. The only instance I know of where non citizens legally vote is in municipal elections, where municipalities have enfranchised them for instance to vote on matters of education.

re the wall: trump did a cost benefit analysis i presume. now california has to deal with that.

I think it’s a grave error to assume Trump did a proper analysis of anything he ever did.

duploelabs · 25-01-2021 1:17pm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the amount of lost revenue (tax) from illegal drug dealers.

Lost revenue due to illegal drugs = X
Lost revenue due to illegal drugs + illegal workers = X + something

lets split the difference and say 12.5% dont pay any state or federal taxes. whats the average annual state tax?
lets also presume that illegals pay both, i notice you say or

Why are you making a link from illegal immigration and drugs?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-01-2021 1:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why exactly are you bringing drug dealing into this at all? Illegal immigrants pay about 13 billion in taxes each year. You previously claimed they don't pay taxes, that's categorically untrue.

On top of that, you have made up claims about the Keystone pipeline. It's almost as if you're arguing in bad faith.

Should this not be in the "legalise drugs" thread?

Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Comments

Joe Biden Presidency thread Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21