On 12/16/2020 at 7:05 PM, DEagle7 said:

Huh...I'm kinda torn here.  On one hand I don't know if transportation is a great avenue to the presidency and I like Petey Pants.  On the other hand I think Infrastructure is kind of a big thing we ignore too much cause it's boring AF and I like that we have a big name there.  

Pete needs real world tactical experience on a big stage...both domestic and international.  This solves the domestic, they'll have to move him later to get the international.  All that being said, it does frustrate me when incoming presidents stack the deck with unqualified people just to get them experience.  Its become more about what's good for the party and less about what's good for the country.  

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Pete needs real world tactical experience on a big stage...both domestic and international.  This solves the domestic, they'll have to move him later to get the international.  All that being said, it does frustrate me when incoming presidents stack the deck with unqualified people just to get them experience.  Its become more about what's good for the party and less about what's good for the country.  

Agreed. Not exactly blown away by some of the picks so far.

21 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Pete needs real world tactical experience on a big stage...both domestic and international.  This solves the domestic, they'll have to move him later to get the international.  All that being said, it does frustrate me when incoming presidents stack the deck with unqualified people just to get them experience.  Its become more about what's good for the party and less about what's good for the country.  

 

18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Agreed. Not exactly blown away by some of the picks so far.

Pete definitely falls into that category but I'd argue most of his appointments have been qualified for their positions. A lot if them were deputies for the same position prior and others have relevant experience (treasury is ex head of the Fed, intelligence is ex deputy director of the CIA etc). 

There are some blah picks (John Kerry) but overall I don't see too many seem given just as experience boosters. Maybe Pete and Fudge? Anyone else?

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Pete definitely falls into that category but I'd argue most of his appointments have been qualified for their positions. A lot if them were deputies for the same position prior and others have relevant experience (treasury is ex head of the Fed, intelligence is ex deputy director of the CIA etc). 

There are some blah picks (John Kerry) but overall I don't see too many seem given just as experience boosters. Maybe Pete and Fudge? Anyone else?

I'm actually fine with Pete, you can tell he's a really smart dude and if anything he's probably able to handle a more challenging role.

But Alex Azar's replacement was someone i was hoping would have more of a medical background rather than one in law. The DHS pick was questionable for similar reasons. Never was a fan of Granholm as gov, so definitely hate to see her in charge of dept of energy. 

There are other picks I dislike for other reasons (Yellen) but not for trying to get someone less qualified a chance to move up the ladder.

15 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Pete definitely falls into that category but I'd argue most of his appointments have been qualified for their positions. A lot if them were deputies for the same position prior and others have relevant experience (treasury is ex head of the Fed, intelligence is ex deputy director of the CIA etc). 

There are some blah picks (John Kerry) but overall I don't see too many seem given just as experience boosters. Maybe Pete and Fudge? Anyone else?

Those are the two that stand out to me.  Its happening on both sides now though, so I'm not saying Biden is worse than anyone else.  Its not a business where you are trying to grow your organization's leadership prowess over the long term.  Taxpayers shouldn't be funding personal development, they should be getting the most qualified person for the job today.  

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

Those are the two that stand out to me.  Its happening on both sides now though, so I'm not saying Biden is worse than anyone else.  Its not a business where you are trying to grow your organization's leadership prowess over the long term.  Taxpayers shouldn't be funding personal development, they should be getting the most qualified person for the job today.  

That's fair, and I wasn't trying to make it a comparative statement.  I just thought from a pure resume POV Biden did a decent job of bringing in qualified people overall.  But I agree it should be 100% not "most" in an ideal world. Pete's a bright guy, hopefully he adjusts well and in an ideal world he'll bring a spotlight to an oft overlooked department. Fingers crossed.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm actually fine with Pete, you can tell he's a really smart dude and if anything he's probably able to handle a more challenging role.

But Alex Azar's replacement was someone i was hoping would have more of a medical background rather than one in law. The DHS pick was questionable for similar reasons. Never was a fan of Granholm as gov, so definitely hate to see her in charge of dept of energy. 

There are other picks I dislike for other reasons (Yellen) but not for trying to get someone less qualified a chance to move up the ladder.

Yeah I agree it's a bummer to see an AG get the HHS job, but I don't blame him.  Becerra has a strong history of defending the ACA which will be important if he plans on solidifying/adjusting it in his term.  At least he picked 2 prominent well-respected physicians for CDC and surgeon general.  Same goes for Mayorkas at DHS with his ties to DACA's creation and defense.  I wouldn't say either is "unqualified" per se, but I will agree it's sad to see lawyers in those positions as Biden prepares to defend his immigration and healthcare policies.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

That's fair, and I wasn't trying to make it a comparative statement.  I just thought from a pure resume POV Biden did a decent job of bringing in qualified people overall.  But I agree it should be 100% not "most" in an ideal world. Pete's a bright guy, hopefully he adjusts well and in an ideal world he'll bring a spotlight to an oft overlooked department. Fingers crossed.

Yea, he did better than I thought he would I must admit.  I don't love the politics of a lot of his picks, but you can't say they aren't qualified. 

Merrick Garland expected to be next AG.

I like the Garland pick a lot.  Important to have someone who is not currently attached to a political party.

The Biden Administration will look Normal compared the last 4 years.

Also, now that the Dems will control the Senate they don’t have to worry about giving up Garland’s spot on the bench.  They should be able to get their judicial appointments through.

I have to say (and I'm sure many of you guys and girls have already said this) as much as I am sure Biden is an upgrade on Trump (I mean it's impossible not to be) he's not very inspiring. The few speeches / conferences I've seen him give he witters on with little emotion and conviction. 

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

 Biden is an upgrade on Trump. 

Just stop there and be done with it.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

Just stop there and be done with it.

That's a very valid and fair point. 

@The Norseman

5 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I have to say (and I'm sure many of you guys and girls have already said this) as much as I am sure Biden is an upgrade on Trump (I mean it's impossible not to be) he's not very inspiring. The few speeches / conferences I've seen him give he witters on with little emotion and conviction. 

Yeah I will take sanity over ratings at this points.

Biden said that he's going ration the vaccine by (I guess) disallowing the 2nd dose and saving those to broaden the number of people who can at least get one dose.

This would lessen the effectiveness of the vaccine, but would allow far more people to receive the vaccination which - in the near term at least - would have a net-positive effect overall on reducing instances of COVID. 

Our shortage of vaccinations has brought us to this, but based on what I'm reading it's the right decision - provided it bridges us to a place where we can then properly vaccinate the entire population when more vaccinations are available. 

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Biden said that he's going ration the vaccine by (I guess) disallowing the 2nd dose and saving those to broaden the number of people who can at least get one dose.

This would lessen the effectiveness of the vaccine, but would allow far more people to receive the vaccination which - in the near term at least - would have a net-positive effect overall on reducing instances of COVID. 

Our shortage of vaccinations has brought us to this, but based on what I'm reading it's the right decision - provided it bridges us to a place where we can then properly vaccinate the entire population when more vaccinations are available. 

Ugh. Awful idea. Who's ever advising him to do this should seriously reconsider. If not, Biden should find a new advisor. I hate this.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Ugh. Awful idea. Who's ever advising him to do this should seriously reconsider. If not, Biden should find a new advisor. I hate this.

the above is as explained by my wife. I'm reading now: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/world/biden-plans-to-release-nearly-all-available-vaccine-doses-in-an-attempt-to-speed-delivery.html

 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the above is as explained by my wife. I'm reading now: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/world/biden-plans-to-release-nearly-all-available-vaccine-doses-in-an-attempt-to-speed-delivery.html

 

I understand the rationale, I just disagree with it for the reasons I stated in the vaccine thread. The risks are just too high.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I understand the rationale, I just disagree with it for the reasons I stated in the vaccine thread. The risks are just too high.

yup. was just saying that was the wife's paraphrasing.

basically I was pre-emptively blaming the wife if we fact-checked it and it wasn't as she interpreted  

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

yup. was just saying that was the wife's paraphrasing.

basically I was pre-emptively blaming the wife if we fact-checked it and it wasn't as she interpreted  

I doubt she misinterpreted it since it's been discussed and floated for a week or two by Slaoui, the head of OWS. I just hope others get in Biden's ear to make him think twice. 

Yeah, she said she had read through a twitter explanation some time back (she's going to try and dig it up) that walked through the numbers, and given the effectiveness of a single dose vs. the two doses contrasted with the broader coverage it was kind of a no brainer.

I would feel better about it if I knew that there was a regular pipeline of the vaccine that could be counted on for people to still - for the most part - receive that second dose, even if they're not reserving it for them, sort of a Just-In-Time vaccination delivery. 

13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yeah, she said she had read through a twitter explanation some time back (she's going to try and dig it up) that walked through the numbers, and given the effectiveness of a single dose vs. the two doses contrasted with the broader coverage it was kind of a no brainer.

I would feel better about it if I knew that there was a regular pipeline of the vaccine that could be counted on for people to still - for the most part - receive that second dose, even if they're not reserving it for them, sort of a Just-In-Time vaccination delivery. 

Then maybe she is misinterpreting things because as far as I understand neither Pfizer nor Moderna ever ran a Phase III trial with a single dose treatment arm. Everyone not in the control arms was giving two doses, thus all the efficacy data we have is on two doses. Now we can infer levels of protection based on cases of infection in both control and treatment arms that just so happened to fall in the period of time between the two doses, but that's obviously a tiny subset of the overall case data and your sample size is now far smaller. Further, the trial was not really designed to suss this out otherwise they could've been actively PCR testing patients in those periods of time. In other words, we went into the trials with a clear purpose which was: Study the efficacy of two doses of this vaccine. To ignore all the data we have now and instead make decisions on a loosely founded inference is just not something I can get on board with. 

7 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

@The Norseman

Interesting.  I heard she may get tapped.  I think she's done a decent job in this messed up state and I liked what she did with pension reform before she became governor.  I'll take a fiscal conservative anywhere I can get one.