|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1419810826593181696
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
First reply I see of course has to throw shade on police abolition/defund the police, although the police did gently caress all to stop this and the city won't cut their budget. I mean how ironic that the police can do literally nothing and some bootlicker will crawl out of the woodwork to tell us this proves why we need the police. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jul 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 08:42
|
|
|
The police are a weird fetish object whose efficacy in yielding public safety is unrelated to the support they can garner from a subset of dipshits. They're the political equivalent to holding your breath and making a wish when you go through a tunnel, but only if doing so meant a number of people were extra-judicially murdered each year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 10:27
|
|
|
good thing it can't happen here I say, sipping my latte as the cops bulldoze hoovervilles and the state burns around me https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-27/likely-california-voters-now-almost-evenly-split-on-newsom-recall-poll-finds Likely California voters now almost evenly split on Newsom recall, poll finds "Californians who say they expect to vote in the September recall election are almost evenly divided over whether to remove Gov. Gavin Newsom from office, evidence of how pivotal voter turnout will be in deciding the governor’s political fate, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. "The findings dispel the notion that California’s solid Democratic voter majority will provide an impenetrable shield for Newsom, and reveal a vulnerability created by a recall effort that has energized Republicans and been met with indifference by many Democrats and independent voters. "The poll found that 47% of likely California voters supported recalling the Democratic governor, compared with 50% who opposed removing Newsom from office — a difference just shy of the survey’s margin of error."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:good thing it can't happen here I say, sipping my latte as the cops bulldoze hoovervilles and the state burns around me (See Release #2021-13, July 27, 2021) VikingofRock posted:There are a lot of undecided / low-information voters who vote because it's their civic duty, or for who-knows-what reason, and some of them probably do vote D reflexively. Voter behavior is notoriously difficult to understand and elections can be won at the margins, so in general I'm pretty skeptical of arguments that a certain class of voter doesn't exist, or is negligible in size if the election is looking close. Usually there's the voting barrier of getting people to the polls, as going to vote can be a pain in the rear end sometimes with everything else people are dealing with. If you look at the historical turnout for registered voters in CA elections, for say the last four Presidential elections and the last four Midterm (Gubernatorial) elections, there's about a 15-25 point split between General Elections and Midterms on participation, with more showing up to Presidential elections; Special elections however have wild participation rates among registered voters (1993 36.37%; 2003 (Davis Recall):61.20%; 2005 50.14%; 2009 28.40%). That makes sense; General and Midterms have a lot of candidates and reasons people could show up, yet Special Elections are particularized around one issue, and in most cases probably have less of the social drivers of Midterms or especially Presidential elections. In this particularized election, Republican voters have a stronger motivation to show up than Democrat voters (or so it seems; defending Gavin is not that powerful of a rallying cry imo), yet voter registration among Democrats is higher. However, this will be, to the best of my knowledge, the second election in which all registered voters in California will be mailed a ballot. This lowers the  barrier substantially, so maybe you'll see more low-motivation voters cast votes this election than they would otherwise due to the mail-in ballot, and maybe those low-motivation voters break more for keeping Gavin than not.I'm still skeptical about the "only campaign for No on Recall" option without a backup candidate being a good idea for the Gavin campaign; I would say they could get someone who isn't more popular than Gavin, which should be easier than Davis, and run them and tell Democrats to vote party line on the ballot; No for Recall; Backup Candidate on Question 2. However, it's also been pointed out to me that, well... the roster of candidates for CA DEM have sucked for years. It's also bad on the CA GOP side. CA GOP only campaigns to preserve their regional principalities and eke out a political living while CA DEM rests of their laurels of holding a supermajority in the state. Maybe the candidate that I propose doesn't exist; and Gavin is less popular that originally presented, since while the turnout for the 2018 election that elected him was really high, it was also really high across the whole nation since it was the Midterms following the election of Donald Trump. Therefore, perhaps if Gavin's Lt. Governor ran, she might actually split the question 1 vote among would-be Democrat voters as suggested, as people would find her a more desirable replacement than keeping Gavin around (I don't know much about the Lt. Governor). I still think they could have found someone though that didn't outshine Gavin yet wasn't a total gaff machine, and that wouldn't split the Democrat-No-to-Recall vote, but meh. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jul 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
I doubt anyone in the state could tell you who the Lt. Gov even is. She's a nonentity, a party functionary that's been awarded her positions, and she has no real base of support. Arguably she'd be ideal for a backup candidate, but then you have the blank slate problem where Dems who are unhappy with Newsom could project whatever they want onto her since they have no idea what she actually stands for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Is Gavin allowed to run for Governor again in 2022 if he gets successfully recalled? Not saying that he would or the Dems would even let him, just curious if you can run again after getting recalled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
I tried looking for “Vote No on Recall” yard signs and found zero for sale. Only various signs for supporting the recall and for a bunch of the Rs running. If Newsom and the Dems gave a poo poo about turning out the D base to keep him in office they’d be handing out signs for free instead of only running TV ads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
DukeDuke posted:I tried looking for “Vote No on Recall” yard signs and found zero for sale. Only various signs for supporting the recall and for a bunch of the Rs running. If Newsom and the Dems gave a poo poo about turning out the D base to keep him in office they’d be handing out signs for free instead of only running TV ads. It's been accepted conventional wisdom among dem political strategists since like 2004 or earlier that yard signs are a waste of time and money. They did not at all rethink this when trump having a zillion more yard signs than Hillary ended up being an early warning that trump voters were much much much much more excited to vote Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jul 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
I remember my parents spent weeks trying to find a No on Prop 8 sign, and when they finally tracked one down it got stolen off the lawn in like a week, and were unable to find another one before the election. Also irrespective of yard signs, the whole Dem strategy for the recall has been to not really acknowledge it at all. "Oh it's some dumb Republican outrage that we'll easily weather, don't validate it by giving it attention." Meanwhile there are Recall Newsom tents popping up at every other storefront I pass. Regardless of what actually happens, there is certainly an enthusiasm gap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Is Gavin allowed to run for Governor again in 2022 if he gets successfully recalled? Not saying that he would or the Dems would even let him, just curious if you can run again after getting recalled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
I don't actually think he would, and if he was stupid enough to he'd be toast: getting recalled would be the end of his political career - but I was curious if he was legally allowed to or not. Thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
imo It absolutely wouldn't be the end of Gavin's career. He's still top dog in the state Dem machine and just put the guy who was the likely next in line in Harris's old seat. The only California Dems who could plausibly also run if a recalled Gavin did run again in 2022 would be: - Steyer but he's possibly even more of a wet blanket. - Kounalakis who is a non-entity (compare her name recognition now to Gavin's a year before he first ran for governor). - Becerra but he just got a cushy Biden admin job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Didn't Bustamante get floated out as a democratic candidate in the 2003 recall? I wonder if the analysis of that would have partially led to the idea of having no endorsed candidates this time around. To be honest, I would recall Newsom if Schwarzenegger was running on the ballot (but he can't run, since he's termed out).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:Didn't Bustamante get floated out as a democratic candidate in the 2003 recall? I wonder if the analysis of that would have partially led to the idea of having no endorsed candidates this time around. Huh. Can’t imagine feeling that strongly about Schwarzenegger’s totally milquetoast governorship. If we’re gonna bring back termed out governors, Moonbeam or bust
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
Schwarzenegger sucked rear end and it is beyond bizzare to me how much people fetishize his governorship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah the fact that he wasn't Pete Wilson doesn't mean that he wasn't lovely. I cannot understand why people like dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Schwarzenegger sucked rear end and it is beyond bizzare to me how much people fetishize his governorship. Yeah he was loving horrible what are you on about OP?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:Didn't Bustamante get floated out as a democratic candidate in the 2003 recall?  quote:To be honest, I would recall Newsom if Schwarzenegger was running on the ballot (but he can't run, since he's termed out).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Schwarzenegger sucked rear end and it is beyond bizzare to me how much people fetishize his governorship. what's not to like, the dems would start passing california single-payer again lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Keep in mind that arnold can't run because he is termed out, so any real action would be speculation. Including a platform and current stance on hot button issues. But, I made my statement as a hot take but from the heart and here are some half hearted statements to back it up.
But given that the above fantasy will never come to pass in any shape or form, I will instead vote to keep Newsom for question 1, and our fellow goon Canasta_Nasty for question 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 07:40
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:Didn't Bustamante get floated out as a democratic candidate in the 2003 recall? I wonder if the analysis of that would have partially led to the idea of having no endorsed candidates this time around.  He was also ~17 points behind Schwarzenegger in the end... which isn't surprising. Apart from that gaffe he was outclassed in charisma by Schwarzenegger. Sure, Schwarzenegger was a bad governor, but he was a good candidate at the time. I think it's different this time; Gavin is overvalued on popularity but he isn't as weak as Davis was. We'll see what happens come election time. Maybe Gavin will get like $200 million in campaign funding to get the vote out and it won't matter anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 09:23
|
|
|
I remember on Conan a lips cutout of Arnold called him "Lose Bustyourpantski" and college-age me was like 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
My favorite recall runner was Arianna Huffington. She had a spiffy website with little JibJab-ish cartoons where she portrayed Davis, Bustamante and Schwarzenegger as whores and other things. Then, when she was polling at less than five percent, she dropped out of the race and just slapped a 'No On Recall' message at the end of these videos. So you basically had, "Gray Davis is awful. NO ON RECALL."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
SolarFire2 posted:JibJab *eyes roll up into skull, shrieking begins* fake edit: THEY'RE STILL MAKING THESE
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
Bringing up vaccine chat again https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/health/pfizer-third-dose-data-bn/index.html Pfizer third dose authorization may come as early as August. In the meanwhile... quote:In order for third doses to be administered to people in the United States, the emergency use authorization that the FDA issued for the vaccine would either need to be amended or, if the vaccine were fully FDA approved, a third dose could be given off label. So, no, you cannot just walk in and get a 3rd dose unless you're willing to twist some arms or bend the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:So is anyone here planning on getting additional "booster" shots? I read that it's only needed for the immunocompromised. Hell no, unless there is overwhelming evidence from sources unconnected to Pfizer that it has a substantial impact. Did people just forget that pharmaceutical companies are mustache-twirling levels of evil, and Pfizer is no exception? We are still in the midst of an opioid epidemic where pharmaceutical companies were paying doctors to overprescribe medication which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands and left even more addicted to the stuff. The recent news about Israel approving a 3rd shot for persons 60 and older is something to be aware of, but its not evidence that anyone needs a 3rd shot or even that it helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:Hell no, unless there is overwhelming evidence from sources unconnected to Pfizer that it has a substantial impact. Just to clarify — would FDA EUA/approval of a Phase 3 trial conducted by Pfizer satisfy your criteria, or are you suggesting it needs to come from a trial that Pfizer was not involved in? If it’s the latter, then that standard probably won’t be met, but also I don’t think it was met for the current 2-dose EUAs either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
If a third shot becomes available and is free, then yeah I'll line up to get jabbed because I doubt it's gonna make anything worse, and if it really would boost immunity then let's loving go. The problem is more that Pfizer has all the financial incentive in the world for it to turn out that COVID-19 shots are the new flu shot, and they've now got an infinite money train to ride. Likewise for the Federal government they not only don't want to have to subsidize 1-2 rounds of shots each year, but they're sick of having to touch the anti-vax stove and just want all this poo poo to go away. Delta may have scared them enough in the short term into advising a third jab, but if Pfizer or [insert pharma company] starts publishing research saying "hey you gotta get jabbed every year" there's going to be a ton of push back. The worst case scenario is we get to a point where pharma is saying you need recurring shots, the CDC is saying no you don't and also the Federal government ain't gonna be paying for them any more, and we all end up stuck between two sides - neither of whom has public health as their primary objective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
So what recourse is there for the people that got the J&J vaccine, not the mRNA ones? When I got vaccinated back in March the Janssen one was the only one available that day and felt it foolish to be picky at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:So what recourse is there for the people that got the J&J vaccine, not the mRNA ones? When I got vaccinated back in March the Janssen one was the only one available that day and felt it foolish to be picky at the time. Throw away your vaxx card and go get mRNA
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
just make an appointment at walgreens or whatever to get one of the good ones If you want to have a doctor's prescription you'll almost certainly be able to get your doctor to officially recommend that you should do it
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Is there a precedent for this? How many people have gotten multiple types of vaccines this way in the past year?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
I've heard plenty of anecdotes of people who got the bad ones going back for one of the mrna ones and doctors recommending they do so but I doubt there's been any official government guidance since the official government line is still that all the American and European vaccines are equally effective (meanwhile the Chinese etc ones are dangerously unproven) and that the effectiveness is 95% which you should treat as 100% There were some studies out of the UK I think where they gave people one shot each of two kinds of vaccines (eg a pfizer and an AZ instead of two pfizer shots) and said that it seemed to work fine Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jul 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Just to clarify — would FDA EUA/approval of a Phase 3 trial conducted by Pfizer satisfy your criteria, or are you suggesting it needs to come from a trial that Pfizer was not involved in? If it’s the latter, then that standard probably won’t be met, but also I don’t think it was met for the current 2-dose EUAs either. Its not even about what kind of study they do, its about how I haven't heard a single person outside of doctors and CEOs from Pfizer say that a 3rd shot is a good idea right now. Every outside source that I can find (medical professional/healthcare agency) seems to be saying "this MIGHT be a good idea in the future but it needs more study, the current vaccines work really well against delta, and extra doses should go to all the countries where they don't have enough vaccine." Pfizer has incredible financial incentive to sell a 3rd shot to rich countries, waaaaaay more than it does selling 1st and 2nd doses to poorer countries. IMO this alone should make you highly skeptical of getting a third shot. The delta variant was originally discovered in India and yet only 26% of the population has been vaccinated there and only 7.3% have been fully vaccinated. The idea that we should be getting 3rd shots to protect against a variant that likely originated from a country where most don't even have their first, let alone second, is absurd to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:Its not even about what kind of study they do, its about how I haven't heard a single person outside of doctors and CEOs from Pfizer say that a 3rd shot is a good idea right now. https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1420497035296391170?s=20 https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1420799038107144196?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:Its not even about what kind of study they do, its about how I haven't heard a single person outside of doctors and CEOs from Pfizer say that a 3rd shot is a good idea right now. Every outside source that I can find (medical professional/healthcare agency) seems to be saying "this MIGHT be a good idea in the future but it needs more study, the current vaccines work really well against delta, and extra doses should go to all the countries where they don't have enough vaccine." The financial incentive has no bearing on the efficacy of the vaccine. Don't let your distrust for Big Pharma cloud the many studies that have been done on how the vaccine effectively reduces the risk to individuals and how two doses is much more effective than one, and furthermore 3-4 months between doses is far more effective than 3-4 weeks-- it follows that the same would hold for a 3rd dose. There's no evidence otherwise. Pfizer has incredible financial incentive to sell to rich countries because rich countries can pay. They are able to do that because they're selling good product. If you're getting a free shot, there's not much reason to be skeptical. Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jul 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
linking two tweets that start with BREAKING and NEW as the first words... Did you look into the decision by the Israeli Health Ministry? I linked an article in my previous post and not only is it for individuals over 60 years old, it also didn't seem to be a unanimous consensus and more of a test to see if it's actually is a good idea. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-health-ministry-panel-recommends-third-covid-shot-for-older-people-1.10049085 quote:Experts advising the Health Ministry have recommended that older people receive a third dose of the coronavirus vaccine, though they disagree on whether the cohort should start at 60 years old, 65 or 70.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
you said that there have been no non-pfizer employees suggesting booster shots. the article you just posted says that a panel of experts recommended a booster shot to the israeli government. unless everyone on this panel and/or in the israeli health ministry is employed by pfizer, your statement that nobody is recommending booster shots that aren't on pfizer's payroll is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:The financial incentive has no bearing on the efficacy of the vaccine. Don't let your distrust for Big Pharma cloud the many studies that have been done on how the vaccine effectively reduces the risk to individuals and how two doses is much more effective than one, and furthermore 3-4 months between doses is far more effective than 3-4 weeks-- it follows that the same would hold for a 3rd dose. There's no evidence otherwise. Its about percentages and time frame. look at the article I just linked, specifically this part. BattleHamster posted:Some of the data presented at a discussion Wednesday suggested that the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing severe symptoms among 60-year-olds and above has dropped to 81 percent from 97 percent in January. This is for individuals above 60 and afaik this decay in efficacy happens slower for people as you go down in age. I'm in my 30's and in fine health, I don't need a third shot just to gain a few extra percentage points especially if that vaccine can go to someone who is currently unvaccinated. If this changes and a bunch of governments and doctors start saying its a good idea and that I'm now at risk even with 2 shots then I'll consider getting a third at that time. But that hasn't happened yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 22:09
|
|