Here's my thoughts;
1> Threatening a lawsuit is admitting you don't have grounds for a lawsuit but are too much of a primadonna to just shut the fuck up and accept your lumps. If you had a case, you'd file. Edit: I see your "they can't sue until he signs something", but by that same token, they could keep their mouths shut until he signs something. Until we see the finalized text, how do they know they even have grounds to sue?
2> What vaccine mandate? Biden isn't mandating everyone get vaccinated. Technically. He's mandating that companies over a certain size must ensure employees are either vaccinated or have had a COVID-19 test in the last week. Not only is there another option, but it doesn't apply to everyone anyway.
3> If you've got 100 employees and fall within this purview, you're not a "small business". Get the fuck outta here.
4> This doesn't hurt workers or their families in any way. The vaccine's available for free. If you mean shitheads who refuse the vaccine because they're morons, then the only "cost" is whatever the cost of weekly testing is, and that's a choice they're making for themselves; the free option's right there.
5> If the vaccine is free, how any are of these people "paying the price"?
As we've seen, they don't need grounds to sue. It's called "Powell of Attorney".
Sorry. Not sorry. Yeah they can't sue until it's written so they can challenge what's written. To Be Continued.
Well yeah, but it's a "not a mandate mandate". If you have to pay $14,000 every time you're found not complying, the exact name isn't really the issue.
Agreed. "Small" business is what people say when they want a vague definition that sounds like it's affecting Mom and Pop stores when it's really Chik-Fil-A.
It's hurting what they feel are their rights which are violated. They're wrong.
They aren't.
I'm sure you know this but any political body making noise about suing isn't actually looking at legal action - they are fundraising. I'm willing to bet you a billion dollars they have send a fundraising letter asking for contributions to help them with legal costs to fight this. The fact it isn't in play yet is irrelevant.
I still think this is far too soft. People are being murderous fuckwads because they think not wearing a mask is a sign of freedom. Their ignorance doesn't change the fact that they are committing manslaughter.
Biden has asked for businesses over 100 employees to mandate vaccination and testing.
The GOP immediately said this was "unfair" to "small" businesses.
The response from businesses, however, is basically "which forms and where do we submit them?" Several large business groups have already responded favorably.
If anything, this is good for them. They can blame Biden and say "sorry y'all need to get vaccinated, my hands are tied" while thinking "this is great, now I won't have workers take month-long sick days or die just because Bubba Jo Bob Bubba showed up one day without a mask". Companies that were going to comply anyhow couldn't care less about the fine. Everyone else now has an excuse to comply, shrugging with a WOMP-WOMP sound effect, and getting a free win while pretending to be upset about it.
Just one more example of President Biden coming up with a pretty creative solution to a difficult problem.
And here is more good news. It's possible that voters will have his back.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/early-vot...001253554.html
Title: Early voting indicates massive turnout in California recall election
Maybe this is an oncoming train at the end of the tunnel and not a light of success. High turnouts in the upcoming elections could thwart republicans in a big way. It's possible!As of September 8, nearly 7 million voters have cast their ballots in California's governor recall election. The special election is generating an unusual turnout for off-year races. CBS News' deputy director of elections and data analytics Kabir Khanna joins CBSN's Lana Zak with his analysis.
It could be an indication that the GOP has been so utterly vile for so long, that they're starting to move people off of their apathy. But it's definitely waaaaay to early to make any sort of guesses like that. It's more likely that CA voters would just prefer to keep the clown car on the road, rather than turn the keys over to someone who wants to drive it over a cliff.
Last edited by s_bushido; 2021-09-11 at 01:57 AM.
Well this fucking sucks, some people need to lose their jobs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/w...stan-isis.html Use incognito to bypass the paywall.
KABUL, Afghanistan — It was the last known missile fired by the United States in its 20-year war in Afghanistan, and the military called it a “righteous strike” — a drone attack after hours of surveillance on Aug. 29 against a vehicle that American officials thought contained an ISIS bomb and posed an imminent threat to troops at Kabul’s airport.
But a New York Times investigation of video evidence, along with interviews with more than a dozen of the driver’s co-workers and family members in Kabul, raises doubts about the U.S. version of events, including whether explosives were present in the vehicle, whether the driver had a connection to ISIS, and whether there was a second explosion after the missile struck the car.
Military officials said they did not know the identity of the car’s driver when the drone fired, but deemed him suspicious because of how they interpreted his activities that day, saying that he possibly visited an ISIS safe house and, at one point, loaded what they thought could be explosives into the car.
Times reporting has identified the driver as Zemari Ahmadi, a longtime worker for a U.S. aid group. The evidence suggests that his travels that day actually involved transporting colleagues to and from work. And an analysis of video feeds showed that what the military may have seen was Mr. Ahmadi and a colleague loading canisters of water into his trunk to bring home to his family.
While the U.S. military said the drone strike might have killed three civilians, Times reporting shows that it killed 10, including seven children, in a dense residential block.
Yeah, int he past we used drone strikes on American citizens in the middle east so this may be a step up? Maybe?
- - - Updated - - -
The administration considers this latest vaccine mandate for private sector companies to be a workaround for the federal government to require vaccines. Psaki basically said so since they can't mandate Americans do it, because , you know the constitution.
Here's a question that Psaki dodged with gibberish, maybe you guys can answer:
If some health care workers will not get the vaccine, how do you convince people they have to get the vaccine to get a job?Business owners are already voicing concerns they aren't able to find applicants for jobs. There are a record 10.9 million job openings. Is the administration at all concerned that this new vaccine mandate that applies to businesses with 100 or more employees will cause further staffing shortages for businesses?
Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2021-09-11 at 06:25 AM. Reason: fixed quote
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
I think there will be people who will actually feel more safe about going back to work with this policy in place.[/QUOTE]
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/sta...11554136788993
Here's Dr Fauci talking about a national level of vaccine requirementsHere's a nice pre election Biden:https://twitter.com/spransch/status/1436389838849183767Encroaching upon a person’s freedom to make their own choice
Also CDC director: https://twitter.com/CDCDirector/stat...49671943569411
https://www.newsweek.com/video-nancy...rfaces-1627730.@BerkeleyJr
To clarify: There will be no nationwide mandate. I was referring to mandates by private institutions and portions of the federal government. There will be no federal mandate.
Nancy Pelosi in April:
December of 2020 Biden said "I don’t think it [vaccines] should be mandatory, I wouldn’t demand it be mandatory” I guess he has decided that he wants to be dictatorial and changed his mind.The Speaker said: "So—so here is the thing. We are—we cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That's just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn't."
Last edited by TexasRules; 2021-09-11 at 04:29 AM.
Fauci is not President or Congress, nor is that "freedom to make their own choice" a right protected by the Constitution.
In fact, SCOTUS has ruled on the Constitutionality of government vaccine mandates before.
- - - Updated - - -
Here's the politifact factcheck article with full quotes (not just the bolded out-of-context portions) from Harris and Biden:
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the fact that it's not unConstitutional.Harris' Statements
Harris was asked in a Sept. 6, 2020, interview whether she would take a vaccine if it was approved before the election. She replied:
Harris was asked in an Oct. 7, 2020, vice presidential debate if she would take a vaccine if the Trump administration approved one. Referring to the leading government epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Fauci, she said:"Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us. I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it. He wants us to inject bleach. I — no, I will not take his word."
"If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it."
Biden’s statements
Biden’s statements on the campaign trail show that he was concerned that politics would influence the development and deployment of the vaccine, and that Trump could not be trusted.
In an interview for a journalism conference Aug. 6, 2020, he said:
In a Sept. 2, 2020 TV interview, Biden referred to political influence over two federal agencies leading the fight against the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. He said:"The way he (Trump) talks about the vaccine is not particularly rational. He’s talking about it being ready, he’s going to talk about moving it quicker than the scientists think it should be moved … . People don’t believe that he’s telling the truth, therefore they’re not at all certain they’re going to take the vaccine. And one more thing: If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done."
In a July 28, 2020 campaign speech, Biden stressed the need for transparency in developing the vaccine. He said:"Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."
In campaign remarks on Sept. 7, 2020, Biden outlined steps he would take to address the pandemic, including masks and contact tracing, adding:"How are you going to distribute the vaccine when it arrives, when it arrives, when it’s there? And the question of whether it’s real, when it’s there, that requires enormous transparency. You’ve got to make all of it available to other experts across the nation, so they can look and see, so there’s consensus this is a safe vaccine. Because already you have, what percent is American people saying if the vaccine were there tomorrow, they wouldn’t take it? And it’s not the usual anti-vaccine crowd. It’s beyond that because people are losing faith in what the president says. Think about it."
The following week, Biden restated his concern about politics intervening in vaccine development:"Charting a clear path of science-based vaccines, free from politics. I get asked the question: ‘If the president announced tomorrow we have a vaccine, would you take it?’ Only if it was completely transparent, that other experts in the country could look at it, only if we knew all of what went into it. Because so far, nothing he’s told us has been true."
"Americans have had to endure President Trump’s incompetence and dishonesty, when it comes to testing and personal protective equipment. We can’t afford to repeat those fiascos when it comes to a vaccine. … Let me be clear: I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people can’t either. Last week, Senator Harris and I laid out three questions this administration’s going to have to answer to assure the American people that politics will not play a role whatsoever in the vaccine process. If Donald Trump can’t give answers and the administration can’t give answers to these three questions, the American people should not have confidence."
Our ruling
A video on social media suggests that Biden and Harris distrusted COVID-19 vaccines.
The video was selectively edited to leave out the context of their statements. Their full statements show they were raising doubts about Trump’s trustworthiness, his ability to roll out the vaccines safely and the risk of political influence over vaccine development.
We rate the video False.
- - - Updated - - -
And yet... they're not mandatory.
Only in your imaginary world. Nobody with any real sense thinks it's "dictatorial".
Is it dictatorial for firefighters to evacuate a building that's on fire?
(Narrator: No, it is not.)
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Right but both the speaker of the house and the President's press secretary have said they can not legally mandate vaccines for the American people.....so that's the congress and the President? What changed before the election and now? Before the election Biden and Harris both said they would not trust a non thoroughly tested vaccine....why should we do it now? The President and his party always complain about looking at the science and his Director of NIAID and the director of the cdc both say there should be no mandate. So is their science now bad?
Nothing.
They're not legally mandating the vaccine with their proposed plan, here. You're misrepresenting the facts, on purpose.
That's just an already-debunked lie.Before the election Biden and Harris both said they would not trust a non thoroughly tested vaccine....why should we do it now?
You really can't tell the truth, can you?
I know you didn't bother to look at what Psaki said, why would you, but she all but admitted they were trying to do an end around because they cannot legally mandate the vaccine. And a lot of those quotes he said about Trump and the vaccine can be applied right now. The trust in Biden is low, look at his polls. Not just for Afghanistan, but his handling of covid. So if Trump came out and demanded that businesses get the vaccine before the election, everybody on this forum woudl claim he's a dictator and he's hitler. They did it for everything he did anyways. You can pretend that forcing workers to get a vaccine they may not want is not dictatorial. It's like when he said he couldn't extend the evictions and then did and then the supreme court said he couldn't do it.
Where exactly did they say that there were legal grounds that prevented it?
No, as answered previously, they said that they would trust a tested vaccine, they just wouldn't trust Trump's word that it was tested properly. And we didn't have to take Trump's word for it. The trials were conducted just fine and their results were proven by scientists. So we took the scientists' word for it.
And guess what, Biden and Harris both received some of the first doses of the vaccine. Why are you still willfully spreading false information?
That's a policy question, not a medical question. They're not saying that there's a medical reason that there shouldn't be a vaccine mandate. The science is still fine, but Biden isn't somehow required to follow Fauci and Wallensky's advice on matters of policy. Both Fauci and Wallensky would agree that we want as many people vaccinated as possible to help save lives during this ongoing pandemic.
And I'll reiterate: this is not a vaccine mandate.
- - - Updated - - -
You're reading far too much into her statement.
I mean, the proof is in the pudding. If there's a legal reason why it can't be done, surely you can point to the law in question? Go on, take a look and come back with the law or SCOTUS ruling that says it can't be done.
Sure, but, like... before the election the vaccine trials weren't sufficiently advanced enough to get an EUA. So yeah, it would have been wrong.
Except that it's still not a mandate. There's the option for non-vaccination. To be honest, I personally would mandate them, but that's not what Biden did. But there's no legal reason why they couldn't.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
It's cute that you admit this isn't a mandate while trying to push the claim that it's a mandate.
1> "Trust" is not "approval".The trust in Biden is low, look at his polls.
2> He's currently dipped to a low of 45.8% approval. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...proval-rating/
That's irrelevant; plenty of Presidents have had lowish ratings. Every single President back to Kennedy has had lower ratings than this at some point. His approval rating simply isn't as low as you claim.
This is you projecting your own bad faith onto everyone else. It has no basis in reality.So if Trump came out and demanded that businesses get the vaccine before the election, everybody on this forum woudl claim he's a dictator and he's hitler. They did it for everything he did anyways.
They're not being forced to vaccinate.You can pretend that forcing workers to get a vaccine they may not want is not dictatorial.
That's a plain fact. You're lying.
And unlike the issue with the eviction notices, an actual mandate is well within constitutionality, and there's plenty of precedent backing that up. And it wouldn't be "dictatorial". You're just ranting and throwing a petty tantrum.