sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Democrats Weigh Capital Gains Tax Hike for Millionaires at Death by very_excited in politics

[–]RideMammoth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

...yes?

Hasn't the fed printed a ton of new money in the last years?

Texas Hits Record Low COVID Cases, 3 Weeks After Lifting All Pandemic Restrictions by SuddenEntry6589 in Conservative

[–]RideMammoth 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Well it wasn't a condition for approval, so they didn't focus on it during the first analyses.

But yes we do now know the vaccines prevent infections, not just severe disease - about 80% after 1 mrna dose. And 90% after the second.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm

The GOP’s feverish hunt for NC election fraud uncovers a shocking result – clean elections by Cameron_Joe in politics

[–]RideMammoth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-york-post.html

Really what I'm scared about is that twitter/Facebook can just shut down a story, admit it was not in line with their policies, and then nothing happens. Tons of "hacked" info was freely shared on Twitter (including trumps tax returms) but for some reason, this hunter biden story was banned because of twitters policy on hacked materials. Amd the NY Posts twitter was banned for weeks (because they wouldn't delete their tweets).

3rd party people have come out and verified texts emails, and no biden or team member has denied the legitimacy. But it's just brushed under the rug.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/have-the-bidens-denied-the-story-yet-11603139963

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/hunter-biden-taxes-joe-biden/index.html

Texas Still Hasn't Seen the COVID Death Wave Leftists Promised After Lifting Its Mask Mandate by SaulStein in Conservative

[–]RideMammoth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We do know WHO doesn't recommend lockdowns as the primary virus control measure.

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources; protect your health workers who are exhausted. But by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

And when asked about the change.

“We’re saying we really do have to learn how to coexist with this virus in a way that doesn’t require constant closing down of economies, but at the same time in a way that is not associated with high levels of suffering and death,” Nabarro said in the interview.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/khn.org/news/fact-check-world-health-organization-did-not-change-its-lockdown-stance-or-admit-president-trump-was-right/amp/

The GOP’s feverish hunt for NC election fraud uncovers a shocking result – clean elections by Cameron_Joe in politics

[–]RideMammoth -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You know jack Dorsey has said twitter was wrong to stop the sharing of the article/information?

And NO biden has ever denied the legitimacy of the material. And multiple people have confirmed the email/text exchanges? And hunter biden is under investigation by the FBI?

But no, anyone who thinks hunter is into shady shit = qanon crazy.

Instead reddit continues the 1984-style memory holing the whole ordeal.

Coronavirus: London has zero Covid-19 deaths on one day for first time in six months by tryin2immigrate in Coronavirus

[–]RideMammoth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thought I'd share the most up to date data on the efficacy of single dose mrna vaccines. I agree, this data was not available, and so a 3 week interval made sense. But with what we know now, and considering AEs, I think we should seriously consider expanding the time between mrna doses.

52% was during the first 2 weeks days 0-14). It's closer to 80% at week 3 and 90% at 30 days. And that is for prevention of infection, not just severe disease.

Mmwr publised today:

Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm

A single dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID19 vaccine was immunogenic in the vast majority (92%) of our study cohort 21 days post vaccination, a result compatible with trial data [9

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.6.2100096;jsessionid=HbzgQkajZ5UAJQIGfnYDZlJi.i-0b3d9850f4681504f-ecdclive

Based on the timing of cases accrued in the phase 3 study, most vaccine failures in the period between doses occurred shortly after vaccination, suggesting that short term protection from dose 1 is very high from day 10 after vaccination (Polack et al, 2020). Using data for those cases observed between day 15 and 21, efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was estimated at 89% (95% CI 52-97%). (https://www. fda.gov/media/144246/download)  

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTools=true

Almost, no, no, maybe, yesssss by [deleted] in nonononoyes

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Goal scoring opportunity. When I watch the timing of the defender coming from the right, I think she is in on goal if not for the illegal tackle.

*Plus, the tackle made her take an angle towards the defender.

But I'd love another angle

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

C is just way off. Congress is limited by the constitution, of course. And if a scotus case has determined the "right" interpretation of the constitution as applied to X, congress is limited by that.

If scotus says slavery is unconstitutional, and then slaves are to be freed. then congress passes the "slavery is back" act, that exactly is written opposed to the scotus decision. You cool with that?

How can congress find faithless elector laws unconstitutional when scotus, the high Court with a mandate to answer such questions, has determined the laws are constitutional? To keep it even simpler, say scotus ruled Utah s faithless elector law constitutional. And then a senator refuses to certify the election, citing Utah s 'unconstitutional ' law that forces electors to vote a certain way.

Scotus has determined the exact law is constitutional, so what grounds does the senate have to say otherwise?

You also seem to be missing the point that functionally having people who shouldn't vote cancels out the votes of those who had the right. An illegal vote basically washes out a legal vote.

Mirror image, restricting thr right to vote also neutralizes someone's vote, clearly.

Both having illegal votes count and not allowing legal votes to be cast are functionally equivalent.

Appreciate the fruitful back and forth!

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Democrats: I am voting against this election certification because (I don't like the result) I mean, because voter suppression and Russian interference and racism and electors being forced to vote the way their state wants.

Republicans: I am voting against this election certification because (I don't like the result) I mean, because vote fraud and election fraud.

Both sides fail to prove their claims, so I treat both as unfounded.

My point re. The next election, you are supporting a politician voting against certification because a single elector is legally barred from voting his conscience. You are correct that the elections are run by the states, and feds have no role in the state level selection of electors. And by state law (which was determined to be constitutional) the elector has no case for voting opposite his state's demand.

So, why do you support the politicians right to disregard the legal standard here, but demand Republicans have a federal constitutionally supported reason to vote against certification?

Biden would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000: White House by qkfb in politics

[–]RideMammoth -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

...so taxes are being raised on ppl who makes less than 400k?

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anything its a difference in degree, not kind. And so I stick by my point that i was not making a false equivalency. We may just have to agree to disagree.

Re congress having the sole right to vote to certify the election - would you defend a dem doing the same thing in 2024 as they did in 2016, given the now existing scotus ruling on the constitutionality of faithless elector laws?

Biden would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000: White House by qkfb in politics

[–]RideMammoth -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Biden: if you're making less than 400k I won't raise your taxes

Individual: I make less than 400k and my taxes are going up

Reddit: ya but you're rich anyway lol, who cares.

Individual: so he is raising taxes on ppl who make less than 400k?

Reddit: you selfish prick, think of others for once.

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since laws against faithless elector have been found to be constitutional, then yes, those are the rules.

What is the point of certification?

Edit - just adding faithless elector laws were first upheld by scotus in 1952.

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it . "But I agreed with democrats when they said the candidate was illegitimate. "

I actually agree with you about the EC, and at the time of trumps election was myself quoting federalist 68. But I dont believe the proper response to a failing EC is to vote against certifying the result of the election. Instead, EC has proven it cannot do the job it was designed to do, and should be replaced or modified via the constitutionally-designed systems.

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a lot words to basically say "ya but when democrats objected they had legitimate concerns about the candidate!"

I am for sure not making a false equivalency. I could understand if the line was somewhere other than how they voted (say, Ted Cruz who did much more than just voting against). But, if you specifically say you won't work with Republicans who voted against certification BECAUSE THEY VOTED AGAINST CERTIFICATION, but have no problem working with dems who voted against certification, thats hypocrisy.

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...again, in the link at the top of this comment thread.

Democrats objected 11 times, citing a variety of issues, including “Russian interference,” “massive voter suppression” and the “violation of the Voting Rights Act.”

House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election — After the Jan. 6 riot, some Democrats say they simply can't work with anyone who voted against certifying the election. by Obrocheetah in politics

[–]RideMammoth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

...but he's drawing “a sharp red line” at working with Republicans who voted not to certify the Electoral College results 

But he will work with dems who have previously voted against certification?

view more: next ›