Trump47 First Week & Beyond Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
I'm not disputing the usefulness of the vaccines. I'm saying that I think there could have been other ways to handle the situation besides kicking the people out.

I'm sure politics played a role in resisting the vaccine and I feel pretty safe in saying that politics played a role in pushing the vaccine - Biden tried to use OSHA to force ~ 80 million Americans to get the vaccine. I found that to be a horrible attempted overreach of federal power.
I'm sure politics played a role in resisting the Island Campaign and I feel pretty safe in saying that politics played a role in pushing the Island Campaign -- FDR tried to use the full power of the federal government to force hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight in the Pacific.

Zen, was that also a horrible attempted overreach of federal power?
 
I'm not disputing the usefulness of the vaccines. I was more than happy to get vaccinated. I'm saying that I think there could have been other ways to handle the situation besides kicking the people out.

I'm sure politics played a role in resisting the vaccine and I feel pretty safe in saying that politics played a role in pushing the vaccine - Biden tried to use OSHA to force ~ 80 million Americans to get the vaccine. I found that to be a horrible attempted overreach of federal power and even worse than the few thousand military personnel refusing to be vaccinated.

Again, soldiers that do not follow lawful orders do not belong in the military. The vaccines were safe and effective. Military COVID deaths dropped to essentially zero after the mandate was implemented.
 
As I said earlier, this isn't a wartime issue. Refusing orders when in battle is significantly different that not wanting to get a vaccine shot.
The UCMJ does not distinguish between lawful orders given in wartime vs peacetime:

§892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation​

Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;


shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
 
The UCMJ does not distinguish between lawful orders given in wartime vs peacetime:

§892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation​

Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;


shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Right. Court Martial punishments vary greatly from minor to severe.

Some people believe that discharging was warranted. I don't.
 
We are only a few years out from widespread use of mRNA vaccines delivery which, as far as I know, had never been used in humans other than a few one-off situations.

The few years since Covid is not long enough to label as "long term". The FDA approval process normally takes about a decade. That time allows for a much better "long term" view.
Vaccines are among the safest “drugs” on the market statistically speaking. Also mRNA vaccine technology has been around for decades. However, instead of promoting the best thing Trump did in his first term, he and others sought to sow discord and discourse about the vaccines’ safety. I’m surprised more people didn’t die from ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine use or tried to inject themselves with bleach based on some of the rampant misinformation spread irresponsibly by our “leaders”.
 

Not sure if this is the best thread, but seems to follow the gist of the conversation. Not a big fan of Stephen A, but I think his premise is valid. Dems came across as only speaking about/ campaigning on trans rights and related so called DEI issues (of course that wasn't remotely true, but that was the perception).
 
I'll take "Worst White House Press Secretary Responses Ever" for $1,000, Ken.


White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt could not immediately answer whether Medicaid will be affected by the sweeping federal funding freeze announced by President Donald Trump on Monday.

Leavitt said during the first press briefing of Trump’s second term on Tuesday that the funding freeze on all federal grants and loans, which was announced in a memo Monday and may impact trillions in government spending and halt public programs that affect millions of Americans, was to “ensure that all of the money going out from Washington, DC, is in line with the president’s agenda.”
 

Not sure if this is the best thread, but seems to follow the gist of the conversation. Not a big fan of Stephen A, but I think his premise is valid. Dems came across as only speaking about/ campaigning on trans rights and related so called DEI issues (of course that wasn't remotely true, but that was the perception).
The only way for anyone to get the perception that Dems were speaking about "trans rights and related so called DEI issues" would have been to ignore what every single Dem was saying and listen only to Republican campaign ads and right-wing media. I dunno how you address a "messaging" problem when the problem is that people will not listen to your messaging at all.
 
The only way for anyone to get the perception that Dems were speaking about "trans rights and related so called DEI issues" would have been to ignore what every single Dem was saying and listen only to Republican campaign ads and right-wing media. I dunno how you address a "messaging" problem when the problem is that people will not listen to your messaging at all.
I agree, but we better figure it out...
 
I'll take "Worst White House Press Secretary Responses Ever" for $1,000, Ken.


White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt could not immediately answer whether Medicaid will be affected by the sweeping federal funding freeze announced by President Donald Trump on Monday.

Leavitt said during the first press briefing of Trump’s second term on Tuesday that the funding freeze on all federal grants and loans, which was announced in a memo Monday and may impact trillions in government spending and halt public programs that affect millions of Americans, was to “ensure that all of the money going out from Washington, DC, is in line with the president’s agenda.”
Prepare for this pattern to repeat over and over:

1. Trump admin issues executive order/memo/directive that is heavy on rhetoric and bombast and light on details, but appears on its face to be incredibly broad in scope
2. People immediately point out all the critical services and functions that the order would, on its face, prohibit/affect/imperil
3. Trump admin gauges public reaction and says "Well obviously we didn't mean _______ and only an idiot could read it in that way"

The confusion and disorder is, of course, the entire point.
 
Putting aside the fact that military personnel were among the lowest risk for serious covid issues, you don't think there was any reason for concern about the vaccine? Other drug approvals take a decade or more, which allows for some view into possible long-term side effects. That wasn't the case with the Covid vaccine. There's also the reality that the mRNA delivery system had never been used in anything remotely close to the scale as it was being used for the Covid vaccine.

I ask that as someone who got the vaccine and one booster.
Just one booster? Whimp.
 

Trump Reverses Biden Order that Eliminated DOJ Contracts with Private Prisons​

The action’s impact is limited to contracts with the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Marshals Service.


“… The Biden executive order — one of his first — had directed the Justice Department not to renew contracts with private prison firms. In one of his first moves as president, Trump — as part of a slew of reversals of Biden-era actions — reversed Executive Order 14006, which had eliminated Justice Department contracts with “Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities.”

This reversal by the Trump administration is not a surprise, and it is in fact something that the two largest corporations that manage prisons and detention centers — the GEO Group and CoreCivic — expected to happen. In fact, on the GEO Group’s third quarter investor call the day after the 2024 presidential election, the company’s executive chairman and founder, George Zoley, said, “We kind of get the sense of President-elect Trump’s remarks that he will reverse all of the Biden executive orders on Day One.” Another sign of an administration friendly to the industry: Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, lobbied for the GEO Group in her role with a DC-based firm.

The reversal affects contracts with the federal Bureau of Prisons, which is responsible for housing the more than 150,000 people in its custody. The bureau began to rely on private prisons in the 1980s to house incarcerated populations with specialized needs and undocumented individuals who are sentenced to federal prison. When Biden took office, about 14,000 people in the federal bureau of prisons were housed at privately managed facilities. Following Biden’s executive order, the bureau terminated all of its contracts with privately managed prisons, and it transferred people incarcerated in private prisons to other bureau facilities.

The reversal also allows for new contracts between private prison corporations and the U.S. Marshals Service, which still uses private industry to house a significant portion of the more than 60,000 people under its supervision, despite the directive from Biden to terminate this relationship. This end run around the 2021 Biden executive order is partly due to intergovernmental services agreements where these corporations’ contract with counties and the counties then in turn contract with the Marshals Service. At the time of Biden’s directive, the agency raised concerns about the order out of fears this population would be moved further from courthouses, increasing the time and money needed to transporting them to and from court. …”
 

Not sure if this is the best thread, but seems to follow the gist of the conversation. Not a big fan of Stephen A, but I think his premise is valid. Dems came across as only speaking about/ campaigning on trans rights and related so called DEI issues (of course that wasn't remotely true, but that was the perception).
Think the GOP did a masterful job of boxing them in with those subjects...not only during the campaign but the last 4 years. And the Dems took the bait. I remember when they appointed the transgender cabinet member...felt like they wanted to force the dialogue.
 
I've wondered about how history factors into the rapid vaccination of armed forces. Back in the Spanish Flu, the virus did big time damage to troops as they were being deployed to Europe. Always assumed that left a lasting lesson in armies that you want to take extreme measures to virus-proof your troops.
 

Not sure if this is the best thread, but seems to follow the gist of the conversation. Not a big fan of Stephen A, but I think his premise is valid. Dems came across as only speaking about/ campaigning on trans rights and related so called DEI issues (of course that wasn't remotely true, but that was the perception).
That was not the perception of anyone who watched the Dems campaign. If their perception came from Trump ads and right media, perhaps so.
 
Back
Top