Scraps

What raises your concerns about pregnancy and birth defects when it comes to these vaccines?

It addressed your last statement.

Polls have shown a greater degree of vaccine hesitancy from Republicans.

Sounds like the goal posts keep getting moved for this drug. First it was that it had to be combined with azithromycin. Then it had to be taken with zinc. Then it had to be taken early. It seems more like you are going to keep changing the combination of ingredients or the time until you get a positive result, which may just be because of the other drugs/minerals/vitamins than because of anything HCQ does. Maybe people are skeptical of HCQ just because it hasn't really shown a clear benefit and not because “they wanted people to die”? What better options are you talking about?

What projections are you talking about?

My understanding of HCQ with respect to SARS-Cov1 is that it was tested and found to be effective in vitro but failed in vivo. I think the same was found for SARS-Cov2. The tests in humans have been muddled at best. For every test, someone from the other POV knocks it down for some flaw in the conduct of the test. Can you point to any double blind studies with a large number of participants that proves HCQ to be effective?

Might this explain Andrew Cuomo?

What fraud and inaccuracies? Do you believe in QAnon?

I am dead set against people who will ring up the credit card our children, their children and grandchildren with no chance of ever balancing the budget. I think the mantra of just "cut taxes" is selfish and short sighted. For that reason, Trump , the self described "king of debt" was a disaster.

I asked my question first. I'll answer yours if you answer mine. Or are you going to continue to dodge, as I expect.

Trump included?

Republicons controlled all the levers of power at the time. They own both the revenue and any excesses in spending. The country was racking up trillion dollar deficits every year, despite extremely low unemployment.

You don't come across as a fan of the Fauc and sarcasm in your posts are humorous.

How ironic.

My parents (90 and 91) got their second shots of the Moderna vaccine a couple of weeks ago. My father was unaffected but my mom was in bed for a day or two. I have a sister who got the Moderna vaccine and felt kind of crappy for a couple of days (she's a nurse). I have a couple of sisters who refuse to take it. They've listened to too much fear mongering from Simone Gold and her ilk. One of them plans to rely on HCQ, Ivermectin, vitamin D, and zinc if she gets sick. I'm especially worried about her because she has a compromised immune system, is a cancer survivor and is on a drug that has bad interactions with ivermectin. I think HCQ is useless. Ivermectin is pretty interesting, if you aren't on blood thinners. My last sister has had covid but isn't vaccine resistant.

Fitz wasn't anywhere near that good on the field. Seems like he's been pretty good with Tua Tagovailoa in Miami.

How a party runs their nominating process is up to them. Certainly in 2016, with the super delegates, the Dems had a system that was tilted against Bernie Sanders. The logic for this was to put a brake on the polar extreme of the party and prevent them from choosing someone who was unelectable in the general election. I'm not a Democrat so I don't have a dog in that fight. I can see both points of view. Both parties have had processes that some would consider unfair historically. How general elections are held is not up to one party. Your dissatisfaction with how a party ran their primary does not apply to a general election. I am unmoved that "alot of people are saying" something wrong about the presidential election. A lot of people only listen to Trump, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and other media biased to one side (yes, there are biased media on the other side). People are filtering out sources giving them information they don't like. If you doubt that, just look at how Fox News ratings dropped and OAN and Newsmax ratings spiked after Fox called Arizona properly for Trump and after they actually put some factual information out in the weeks later. If people hear is the same lies, over and over and over again from an obvious conman, then they are simply willing marks. What they are saying, what they may think, is still simply a lie. Other that "suspicious voting software" nothing you mentioned amounts to voter fraud or a fraudulent election. Just because some people paid by Trump or one party keeps claiming there were problems with voting software does not mean there was anything wrong with the software. If you think there is a problem, answer me this. How could Smartmatic possibly affect the outcome of the election? Smartmatic was used in only 1 county, Los Angeles. If there was a problem with Dominion machines, why did hand recounts in Georgia, Wisconsin and a sampling of ballots in Maricopa County verify the machine results? Why didn't these machines flip states that Trump won? Why did Republicans pick up seats in the House and state assemblies? Shouldn't the machines have worked in Democrats favor in all the races? The machines are tested before the elections to make sure they tabulate correctly. How did the machines pass the test? Shouldn't you look at some of the absolutely crazy things that Sydney Powell or Rudy Giuliani were saying (involvement of the long dead Hugh Chavez, ballots being counted overseas) and look at everything they say with deep skepticism? Nonsense. Maybe your not hearing any evidence because there is none. If there were evidence, there is no reason why Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and others with a right wing bias wouldn't make it public. Trump and the Republicans contested ballots based on hasty, superficial reviews of voter rolls (dead people voting, people who no longer lived in a state voting for example). The states and news organizations looked into these claims and found the vast majority of the claims wrong. People who were thought to be dead were indeed alive, people had identical or similar names, the dead person didn't vote, a spouse voted as Mrs. Bob Smith for example regarding the dead people. In the cases of people who "no longer lived in the state" voting, these people were either deployed overseas, out of state at school or had moved back to the state and were indeed legal voter. There is a system to settle disputes in this country. That is what the Judicial Branch is for. Trump and his cohorts went something like 1-60 in the courts. If there were evidence, that would be the place to present the evidence. Instead little evidence, hearsay evidence or no evidence was presented. If there was evidence, the courts felt that there were other explanations for what the "evidence" meant, the evidence or the evidence was misinterpreted or it was simply insufficient. In one case, the presiding judge wrote the following "In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more." That says a lot about how vacuous Trump's claims are. Why is it so difficult to accept the most simplest, straight forward answer. Enough voters were either dissatisfied with or sick and tired of him, or both, and Trump lost.

Sadly, this shouldn't be that surprising. Look back at the Ebola epidemic. Faux News was fear mongering all it could leading up to the elections, since it made the brown man in the White House look bad. Literally the day after the mid-term election, Sean Hannity announced that Fox News would no longer cover the Ebola epidemic.

How was the election stolen? I know of many ways that Trump tried to steal the election but I am not aware the contrary evidence. Do you believe in QAnon?

Covfefe

I'm not sure I understand the voter ID issue when it comes to mail in voting. Why isn't signature verification enough to satisfy the voter ID aspect?

Why do you think mail-in balloting can't be secure? There are 5 states that do most of there voting by mail, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Are the results for those states all fraudulent?

Do you want your state to follow Texas example on how to run a power grid?

To what extent do legacy costs such as pensions affect the competitiveness of US goods.

I have family in Texas. This puts them at risk. The virus doesn't know borders. What happens in Texas isn't likely to stay in Texas. With more infections, there is likely to be more mutations, some of which may be resistant to vaccines. Texas has done a particularly poor job with the virus. I'll make the same observation about Mississippi. I think these governors are just pandering to a constituency at the expense of the rest of us. If they had at least gotten their most vulnerable population immunized, I wouldn't consider it to be so reckless and self serving. Given the acceleration in Vaccine availability, waiting another month or so would not have been so bad.