All_Pro_Bills

From what I have read and understand Trudeau and his party are in serious jeopardy of losing their majority collation. PS: Is ID required to vote in Federal or Provincial elections? Just curious.

You're in a plane crash in the wilderness. With no chance of being rescued for 10 to 12 months. You can get on one of two planes. The first plane is full of red state people. People with hard life skills, farmers, hunters, military vets, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and construction people, and other people with basic skills and more conservative views. The second plane is full of blue state people. Bankers, entertainers and artists, sociologists, women, race, and gender studies majors, web app designers, people on welfare and social assistance. You want to maximize your chances of survival. Which plane do you get on? See, the problem with Silvermans's idea is the majority Blue state people she represents generally have no life or basic survival skills or the knowledge or ability to keep the fundamental elements of civilization working. Most of them would die in the first 3 months. The rest might start to figure it out. Keeping things working like the water supply, electricity, the communications systems, roads and bridges, garbage pick up. All that stuff they take for granted that are performed by the deplorables. When your power goes out in the middle of the night I suspect its not a crew of hard core Biden supporters rolling out to get it back on.

Really? I thought I articulated our current dilemma perfectly. And its not that simple. Is it? Not when uninformed officials are making unilateral decisions on health issues which conflict with known science and ignore facts that conflict with their edicts. I'm not concerned nor do I care about their motivations at this point. They are simply incapable of getting the job done and need to be replaced with people driven to make decisions with facts and science. Why is it so difficult to see and accept that we're heading down a path to failure without change in direction?

Sounds like an American Socialist's wet dream.

Speaking of control groups. How many people aware that the Pfizer vaccine study control group was vaccinated for "compassionate" purposes? Which means the clinical researchers have no baseline group to measure and monitor the efficacy and safety of the vaccine over time. Whether or not this is a common practice I do not know.

We've devolved into a system of coercion and tyranny where elected and appointed officials issue mostly medically unsupported and unexplained edicts and proclamations, without public debate and conversation, that have taken medicine and science out of the hands of physicians, researchers, and scientists working in a cooperative environment to serve and balance the interests of society and individual patients. Add to that a bonus feature where unqualified social media platform managers officiate and monitor the public health conversation deciding which ideas, facts, and opinions (informed and uninformed) should be allowed to enter the conversation. A task that should be left to the medical and scientific communities and patients to freely evaluate to draw conclusions and set health policies. Its a mess at an entirely higher level that can not and will not produce the results necessary to manage and suppress the outbreak. Supporting officials issuing these mandates is supporting failure.

Let me guess An upper middle class white college educated woman of privilege preaching about the plight of poor and oppressed blacks. None of which she's every personally met. Like all virtue signaler that believe admitting their sins entitles them to maintain there privilege and possessions.

Because the ideologists use the excuse that Trump is extremely evil as justification to violate and break all laws and exceed their authority. Using that excuse they are performing noble acts of sacrifice and good above and beyond the law, invoking that excuse to break all legal, constitutional, ethical, or moral boundaries and limits without being subject to any adverse consequences. In other words, they're all sociopath scumbags.

Not a dumb question at all. But rather something important. Because if the immune response generated by the vaccine is consistent with the immune response generated by natural immunity then the ability or inability to identify or use antibody level measures as an indicator of effectiveness should be consistent. And if you look at clinical trial outcomes measures (primary & secondary) like the Pfizer vaccine trial they list, for example: "Proportion of participants in Phase 1 achieving a greater than or equal to 4-fold rise from before vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing antibody levels [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ] As measured at the central laboratory." Which I read as the vaccine generates antibodies. So why can we measure these antibodies in a vaccine clinical trial but not from natural immunity? Maybe the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. can explain? How you can not measure antibodies accurately in the case of natural immunity but you can measure antibodies accurately in the case of vaccination? Or maybe you can't?

If the vaccine works consistent with how the definition of a vaccine states, which is to provide immunity, then nobody can get you sick with COVID. Because you are immune. End of story. So if you've gotten vaccinated and you're still worried about getting sick either you are acting out of irrational fear or the vaccine does not grant immunity. And rather the provide immunity it provides protection or pre-emptive treatment by either suppressing the symptom or lowering the severity of the illness.

There's several issues here. Does the jurisdiction have the authority to issue the mandate with or without the consent of its citizens? And do masks have any positive impact on inhibiting the spread of the virus? By mask type, by social setting, etc. And if so, what is the objective measure of that increase in protection for the specific situation? And does the level of increased protection (if any) produce a benefit that exceeds any and all costs (financial, social, etc,) associated with the mandate? The first one is for the courts to decide, the next two for the medical and scientific community to provide, and the last for the communities and people involved to discuss and collectively decide. We're making all of this way too hard.

If memory serves me well nobody was held accountable for Benghazi. It was all act. Also, we never did find out who in the Obama administration gave the stand-down order to the rescue mission that was in-flight during the attack. So no accountability there either. So beyond the ridiculous idea that Trump is to blame (and curiously that they could change everything his administration put in place except this) for there terribly timed and executed withdrawal "plan" who is or will be held accountable for the Afghan withdrawal disaster? How many people will resign or be fired? I suggest we put a pin back in the grenade on this one until this all plays out but my bet is nobody in the Administration, the Pentagon, or the Intelligence Community is going to be held accountable. The nobody could have seen this coming excuse will prevail. And the party operatives in the media will work overtime to bury the story until it fades.

That' might be a good question. I don't know the answer. But I'm not hear to defend Trump. The problem is Democrats get judged by different set of criteria and so do others that serve the needs of their elite 1% masters. When a republican (unless they're Bush's or Chaney's or some other American "royal" family) lies or is involved in an act of indiscretion or some other negative situation they get exposed and have to deal with the consequences. And if that doesn't work it gets taken to the next level and the government and the media make up a bunch of stuff and push those narratives. When a democrat lies or is involved in an act of indiscretion or some other negative situation nothing ever happens. There are no government investigations or charges or hearings and the media whitewashes the story, suppresses any voices communicating or reporting on it, and ignores it until it goes away. That's today's reality. You can bet if somebody outside the protected political class screwed the pooch like Biden did on the Afghanistan withdrawal there would be House and Senate hearings already scheduled and talk of invoking the 25th or Impeachment. But senile Old Joe gets a full pass. Because he's protected. If this was a Mafia operation, a characterization which hits close to the truth, you'd call him a Made Man. So he gets a pass, for his "successful" withdrawal. I heard it put best. The administration's spin on the successful withdrawal is like celebrating the sinking of the Titanic as the most successful life boat rescue mission ever.

Because the Democrats control the government and they along with their agents control the mainstream and social media. So the douche bag 1) wasn't arrested or charged, 2) the story of the attack received no airplay or coverage despite its clearly racial overtones. Now if the pro-Elders group would have retaliated and stomped the crap out of the attackers you bet your little booties the story would have grown wings and would have flown off front and home pages everywhere. So their reaction to the incident was both smart and restrained.

I can agree on a lot of things but I'll admit. I'm getting lost here. I've listened to Biden, Fauci, the CDC, and all the mayors, governors, and other officials issuing statements and edicts on restrictions and mandates. I see the benefits of the vaccine but I also see the limitations of the vaccine. What I don't see is any admission of those limitations in official policy and goals. More or less Biden said he's issued mandatory vaccination orders primarily in order to protect the vaccinated from the un-vaccinated. That's seems to be what everybody is worried about. Keeping un-vaccinated out of the workplace, bars and club, shows, public places because they pose a risk to the vaccinated. So why is that even necessary? Because if the vaccine worked like a vaccine is defined to work an un-vaccinated and infected person can not get a vaccinated person sick. Period. So what the POTUS is implicitly admitting is the COVID vaccines do not work. Because if they did work I as a vaccinated person should have no fear that un-vaccinated individual pose any risk to me. End of story. Its more like a prophylactic treatment. If the COVID vaccine worked like a traditional vaccine it should: Grant immunity and protect you from getting sick, period. In any shape, way, or form. Prevent the virus from using the host as an incubator. Prevent the host from passing the virus to somebody else. Produces immunity without severe adverse side effects. What the COVID vaccines do is: Protect you from serious illness. Provide protection for a unknown period of time. So how is it possible to stop a viral outbreak with a biological agent that has those attributes? But public policy has gone "all in" on vaccines and at this point resorted to threats and intimidation to get their way. Which won't turn out to be very effective public policy.