Author Topic: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )  (Read 15727 times)

Raenia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
I wondered when this topic would start and I always assumed that the first issue would be kids in cages.  In one of the "Should I have a political litmus test for family/friends/contractors" topics, someone mentioned that they couldn't talk to republicans because Trump put kids in cages.  When I mentioned that the cages were built and originally used by Obama, it became that they couldn't be friends with republicans because of the number of kids in cages.  Now that Biden has crushed that record number of kids due to his policies, I just want to say lp.org is your place for the libertarian party.

What's the official Libertarian Party policy on border crossing?

Traditionally many libertarians have argued that since crossing a border harms no-one (and state boundaries are arbitrary and enforced with violence), there should be completely open borders - in accordance with the non-aggression principal.

Based on a quick peruse of the LP website, that appears correct.

https://www.lp.org/?s=border

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18433
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I wondered when this topic would start and I always assumed that the first issue would be kids in cages.  In one of the "Should I have a political litmus test for family/friends/contractors" topics, someone mentioned that they couldn't talk to republicans because Trump put kids in cages.  When I mentioned that the cages were built and originally used by Obama, it became that they couldn't be friends with republicans because of the number of kids in cages.  Now that Biden has crushed that record number of kids due to his policies, I just want to say lp.org is your place for the libertarian party.

What's the official Libertarian Party policy on border crossing?

Traditionally many libertarians have argued that since crossing a border harms no-one (and state boundaries are arbitrary and enforced with violence), there should be completely open borders - in accordance with the non-aggression principal.

Based on a quick peruse of the LP website, that appears correct.

https://www.lp.org/?s=border

Well, I don't entirely support that position, but that's awesome that they're sticking with their guns on what's a pretty unpopular stance to take these days.

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Location: Tennessee
I think...in terms of the number...there has been a huge decrease in "kids in cages" over the past 1-2 months. Something like an 88% drop as families are finally being reunited under Biden. I guess any kids in cages are too many...but at least Biden's administration has made it a priority to fix those problems instead of exacerbating them.

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2021, 08:49:37 AM »
I think term limits should be instituted in all elected governmental positions. We term limit Presidents, but not any members of Congress and it makes for career politicians gumming up the works in order to maintain power or their particular seat. I don't feel the Supreme Court has been overly political in its history, but I also would support term limits for Justices as well. It seems like an easy fix to many of the problems our system of government faces...but I know Congress wouldn't pass it in a million years. Congress seats were never meant to be lifelong careers. I believe the intent was for people to serve a term or two and then go back home...but of course we have people holding onto seats for dear life...for decades...and I feel like we all suffer for it.

The problem with term limits is that there’s a learning curve to getting things done in the Congress. The terms I’ve heard suggested (at least for the House) are way too short to be able to do anything with that knowledge. So just about the time that they’re getting the hang of what they’re doing, now they can’t serve anymore. Your institutional memory becomes the staff and the lobbyists  Would it help kill the idea to say you’d be setting up the perfect conditions for a congressional deep state? 

In addition, the bogeyman name I hear related to the idea of term limits is Nancy Pelosi. Do the Republican advocates of term limits (or Democratic opponents, for that matter) realize they’d lose Mitch McConnell, who was first elected to the senate in 1984, and has done a wonderful job stymieing the Democrat’s proposals?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2021, 09:24:40 AM »
I think term limits should be instituted in all elected governmental positions. We term limit Presidents, but not any members of Congress and it makes for career politicians gumming up the works in order to maintain power or their particular seat. I don't feel the Supreme Court has been overly political in its history, but I also would support term limits for Justices as well. It seems like an easy fix to many of the problems our system of government faces...but I know Congress wouldn't pass it in a million years. Congress seats were never meant to be lifelong careers. I believe the intent was for people to serve a term or two and then go back home...but of course we have people holding onto seats for dear life...for decades...and I feel like we all suffer for it.

The problem with term limits is that there’s a learning curve to getting things done in the Congress. The terms I’ve heard suggested (at least for the House) are way too short to be able to do anything with that knowledge. So just about the time that they’re getting the hang of what they’re doing, now they can’t serve anymore. Your institutional memory becomes the staff and the lobbyists  Would it help kill the idea to say you’d be setting up the perfect conditions for a congressional deep state? 

In addition, the bogeyman name I hear related to the idea of term limits is Nancy Pelosi. Do the Republican advocates of term limits (or Democratic opponents, for that matter) realize they’d lose Mitch McConnell, who was first elected to the senate in 1984, and has done a wonderful job stymieing the Democrat’s proposals?

There's not that much of a curve. I haven't been in any job where I wasn't fully functioning after at least a year. Plus, there's like 500 of them. Plenty of people spread out the work. Congressional members get plenty of practice legislating at the state level that any new batch of members should be able to come in and do a reasonably good job.

The problem with Pelosi and Mitch is that Pelosi seems to be stuck in the 90's thinking the Democratic party hasn't changed since Clinton and Mitch doesn't care what happens after he's dead in 10 years.

Term limits solve both of those problems. But I would agree, 4 years is too short, but 20-30 years? Politics changes every decade, I'd say after 10 years or so, experience might actually be a net negative on the country. (Obviously not true for every politician, but seems true enough in aggregate)

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2021, 09:30:23 AM »
I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

I'm actually way left of center, but I'm happy to criticize any politician that is doing dumb shit.

So I'll just say that I view the vaccine patent waiver as a really good way to never get a good malaria, chagas, or dengue fever vaccine.
Bloomberg: Merkel Pushes Back on Vaccine Patent Waiver in Row With U.S.

Had to chime in here. Waiving the patents on Covid vaccines is the correct, the life saving, the humanitarian thing to do. Especially when US Govt Cheddar led to the development of said vaccines. Last time I checked, the top US pharmaceutical companies were 40 billion dollar hugely successful multinational behemoths. They will be just fine.

In addition, it's going to take some time for any other government or pharm company to produce those vaccines despite the patents. Pfizer and Moderna and J&J still have a HUGE lead for the next couple years. Who knows where the Covid pandemic will be in a couple years, but the sooner it is entirely gone, the better.

JGS

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2021, 09:54:37 AM »
I think term limits should be instituted in all elected governmental positions. We term limit Presidents, but not any members of Congress and it makes for career politicians gumming up the works in order to maintain power or their particular seat. I don't feel the Supreme Court has been overly political in its history, but I also would support term limits for Justices as well. It seems like an easy fix to many of the problems our system of government faces...but I know Congress wouldn't pass it in a million years. Congress seats were never meant to be lifelong careers. I believe the intent was for people to serve a term or two and then go back home...but of course we have people holding onto seats for dear life...for decades...and I feel like we all suffer for it.

The problem with term limits is that there’s a learning curve to getting things done in the Congress. The terms I’ve heard suggested (at least for the House) are way too short to be able to do anything with that knowledge. So just about the time that they’re getting the hang of what they’re doing, now they can’t serve anymore. Your institutional memory becomes the staff and the lobbyists  Would it help kill the idea to say you’d be setting up the perfect conditions for a congressional deep state? 

In addition, the bogeyman name I hear related to the idea of term limits is Nancy Pelosi. Do the Republican advocates of term limits (or Democratic opponents, for that matter) realize they’d lose Mitch McConnell, who was first elected to the senate in 1984, and has done a wonderful job stymieing the Democrat’s proposals?

There's not that much of a curve. I haven't been in any job where I wasn't fully functioning after at least a year. Plus, there's like 500 of them. Plenty of people spread out the work. Congressional members get plenty of practice legislating at the state level that any new batch of members should be able to come in and do a reasonably good job.

The problem with Pelosi and Mitch is that Pelosi seems to be stuck in the 90's thinking the Democratic party hasn't changed since Clinton and Mitch doesn't care what happens after he's dead in 10 years.

Term limits solve both of those problems. But I would agree, 4 years is too short, but 20-30 years? Politics changes every decade, I'd say after 10 years or so, experience might actually be a net negative on the country. (Obviously not true for every politician, but seems true enough in aggregate)

I obviously also don't think there's that steep of a learning curve...and if there is, I think it's a small price to pay for the flip side of that coin and having the same, stale, obstructionist members in congress for 20, 30, 40 years or more. If your main objective is to stymie the other side's objectives instead of learning how to work together to serve the people, then I'd argue you're already there for the wrong reasons. I'd prefer people like that to be limited in the amount of damage they can do to democracy by not seeking to serve the people and instead only serving themselves.

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2021, 10:18:04 AM »
Had to chime in here. Waiving the patents on Covid vaccines is the correct, the life saving, the humanitarian thing to do. Especially when US Govt Cheddar led to the development of said vaccines. Last time I checked, the top US pharmaceutical companies were 40 billion dollar hugely successful multinational behemoths. They will be just fine.

To clarify, Moderna received about $2.5B in government funding to speed the development/testing/deployment of their vaccine.

Pfizer developed and produced their vaccine without any funding from the US government. They did receive an advanced order for doses of the vaccine, which is why the USA has been able to get to the head of the line and receive a lot more doses faster than countries in the EU.

Money is fungible. $2.5B to Moderna to develop vs $1.95B to Pfizer in "advance purchase agreements" amounts to the same thing. Contractual semantics. Either way, it's Government Cheddar.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/politics/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.html#:~:text=He%20added%20that%20the%20%241.95,spend%20on%20infectious%20disease%20outbreaks.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2021, 10:18:16 AM »

I obviously also don't think there's that steep of a learning curve...and if there is, I think it's a small price to pay for the flip side of that coin and having the same, stale, obstructionist members in congress for 20, 30, 40 years or more. If your main objective is to stymie the other side's objectives instead of learning how to work together to serve the people, then I'd argue you're already there for the wrong reasons. I'd prefer people like that to be limited in the amount of damage they can do to democracy by not seeking to serve the people and instead only serving themselves.

Yeah, the main problem I see with term limits is that it seems like a patchwork fix/ nonfix to a larger broken system. We're stuck with obstruction, not because Mitch is especially experienced at it, but because the system encourages it. I don't see any proof from any of the freshman GOP senators that they would be willing to negotiate (Hawley, Tuberville) anymore than the experienced ones. We'd simply just end up with younger people doing the same obstruction. At best, we'd get a couple of extra laws passed around Marijuana legalization? But that'd be about it.

As long as the GOP is minority rule and the Senate rules allow for obstruction by 40 members, this will continue.

I don't see a way out of this other than complete abolition of the Senate, and House seat gerrymandering. But short of that, real solutions would have to be the abolition of the Senate filibuster and rescaleing Senate apportionment to at least somewhat account for population. Until we severe this completely undemocratic institution, the stupid politics will continue.

For the life of me, I can't understand Manchin's opposition to DC Statehood. It's like he wants to be in the minority party come, I don't know, August when Feinstein dies? I guess if a GOP senator dies, they could push something through without him. That would be interesting.

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
I think Manchin is a Democratic senator from an overwhelmingly Republican state. He understands his constituency. His constituency does not want DC folks or Puerto Ricans to achieve statehood.

There could be an argument for him "falling on his sword" for the good of democracy in general, but remember that all these senators and congressmen are total egomaniacs. They are not like other people. They thirst for power, fame, and influence. Once they achieve these things, they are immensely reluctant to let them go.

Of course, this argument favors mandatory term limits.

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2021, 10:32:03 AM »
Had to chime in here. Waiving the patents on Covid vaccines is the correct, the life saving, the humanitarian thing to do. Especially when US Govt Cheddar led to the development of said vaccines. Last time I checked, the top US pharmaceutical companies were 40 billion dollar hugely successful multinational behemoths. They will be just fine.

To clarify, Moderna received about $2.5B in government funding to speed the development/testing/deployment of their vaccine.

Pfizer developed and produced their vaccine without any funding from the US government. They did receive an advanced order for doses of the vaccine, which is why the USA has been able to get to the head of the line and receive a lot more doses faster than countries in the EU.

Money is fungible. $2.5B to Moderna to develop vs $1.95B to Pfizer in "advance purchase agreements" amounts to the same thing. Contractual semantics. Either way, it's Government Cheddar.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/politics/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.html

Money is certainly fungible. But there is a big difference between getting funding to develop a vaccine whether or not it works and just having a contract signed which says "If you develop a vaccine AND if it works and passed FDA approval AND you can successfully scale up manufacturing to the point of making 100M doses then we agree to buy those 100M doses."

If Pfizer hadn't been able to develop the vaccine, if it hadn't been able to pass FDA clearance, or if they'd been unable to scale production, the feds wouldn't have made them whole. So it was their own funds at risk in paying for the development of a vaccine which might or might not work.

Would Pfizer have developed their vaccine with the government billion dollar guarantee? If not, then your argument is moot. Money is money.

Now lives are also lives, and are more important than money (whether American, Indian, or Brazilian), thus my agreement with the Biden choice to waive the patents.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14907
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2021, 11:05:46 AM »

I obviously also don't think there's that steep of a learning curve...and if there is, I think it's a small price to pay for the flip side of that coin and having the same, stale, obstructionist members in congress for 20, 30, 40 years or more. If your main objective is to stymie the other side's objectives instead of learning how to work together to serve the people, then I'd argue you're already there for the wrong reasons. I'd prefer people like that to be limited in the amount of damage they can do to democracy by not seeking to serve the people and instead only serving themselves.

Yeah, the main problem I see with term limits is that it seems like a patchwork fix/ nonfix to a larger broken system. We're stuck with obstruction, not because Mitch is especially experienced at it, but because the system encourages it. I don't see any proof from any of the freshman GOP senators that they would be willing to negotiate (Hawley, Tuberville) anymore than the experienced ones. We'd simply just end up with younger people doing the same obstruction. At best, we'd get a couple of extra laws passed around Marijuana legalization? But that'd be about it.


Term-limits need not solve the gridlock issue to still be a good policy overall. The power of incumbency is quite real, and I simply think we'd better off if we limited individuals to (numbers up for debate) four terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. It doesn't escape my attention that such limits would likely have pushed Biden and others out of office a long time ago.

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2021, 11:50:24 AM »

There's not that much of a curve. I haven't been in any job where I wasn't fully functioning after at least a year. Plus, there's like 500 of them. Plenty of people spread out the work. Congressional members get plenty of practice legislating at the state level that any new batch of members should be able to come in and do a reasonably good job.


1. Both the senate and the house have about 20 standing committees plus a bunch of temporary committees covering issues from agriculture to homeland security. Most everything that goes to an overall vote has to make it past one or more committees first. Representatives aren’t required to serve on a committee, but are usually allowed to serve on up to two committees and four subcommittees. And even if somebody is on a couple of committees, it’s likely that their constituents would like you to present their issues to the committees the representative is not a member of, and I’d like to think the representative will at least learn enough to have a cogent conversation on those issues. And they’ll need more than a couple of slogans, they’ll need to be able to answer or fend off any pointed questions from the opposition. Being able to do that on all the issues your constituents care about = learning curve.
   
1a. With all those committees come lots of rules and procedures, and at that level, there are people who weaponize those. They can also argue the other way, saying a rule exists when it doesn’t. There are parliamentarians to help, but they’re more like referees than play callers. Picking up the nuances = learning curve.

2. True there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, but some of them are diametrically opposed to each other, and wouldn’t trust them as far as they could throw them. Plus there are varying levels of competence. It’s not like they have to pass a test, they only get more than 50% of the vote. If the 80-20 rule holds (80% of the work is done by 20% of the people), the vast majority of the work is going to be done by about a hundred people, which will probably break down to about 50 per side. And now you’re going to add the constraint they can only serve a handful of terms? I think you’re asking for trouble.

3. There is no requirement that congressional members serve in any public capacity prior to campaigning for a position. Even those that have served in a public capacity may not have served in the legislature (for instance law enforcement, prosecuting district attorneys, or mayors).

I’d like to think politicians wouldn’t become so entrenched if there wasn’t as much gerrymandering (Republicans have been in the news recently, but the Democrats have done it too). That there’d be more turnover (at least in the house) if districts were more balanced, so that limits wouldn’t be an issue. But Pelosi represents San Francisco, and I suspect any district you draw up there is going to be blue. And you have other areas of the country that, no matter how you draw the district, it’ll probably end up red.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2021, 12:03:41 PM »

There's not that much of a curve. I haven't been in any job where I wasn't fully functioning after at least a year. Plus, there's like 500 of them. Plenty of people spread out the work. Congressional members get plenty of practice legislating at the state level that any new batch of members should be able to come in and do a reasonably good job.


1. Both the senate and the house have about 20 standing committees plus a bunch of temporary committees covering issues from agriculture to homeland security. Most everything that goes to an overall vote has to make it past one or more committees first. Representatives aren’t required to serve on a committee, but are usually allowed to serve on up to two committees and four subcommittees. And even if somebody is on a couple of committees, it’s likely that their constituents would like you to present their issues to the committees the representative is not a member of, and I’d like to think the representative will at least learn enough to have a cogent conversation on those issues. And they’ll need more than a couple of slogans, they’ll need to be able to answer or fend off any pointed questions from the opposition. Being able to do that on all the issues your constituents care about = learning curve.
   
1a. With all those committees come lots of rules and procedures, and at that level, there are people who weaponize those. They can also argue the other way, saying a rule exists when it doesn’t. There are parliamentarians to help, but they’re more like referees than play callers. Picking up the nuances = learning curve.

2. True there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, but some of them are diametrically opposed to each other, and wouldn’t trust them as far as they could throw them. Plus there are varying levels of competence. It’s not like they have to pass a test, they only get more than 50% of the vote. If the 80-20 rule holds (80% of the work is done by 20% of the people), the vast majority of the work is going to be done by about a hundred people, which will probably break down to about 50 per side. And now you’re going to add the constraint they can only serve a handful of terms? I think you’re asking for trouble.

3. There is no requirement that congressional members serve in any public capacity prior to campaigning for a position. Even those that have served in a public capacity may not have served in the legislature (for instance law enforcement, prosecuting district attorneys, or mayors).

I’d like to think politicians wouldn’t become so entrenched if there wasn’t as much gerrymandering (Republicans have been in the news recently, but the Democrats have done it too). That there’d be more turnover (at least in the house) if districts were more balanced, so that limits wouldn’t be an issue. But Pelosi represents San Francisco, and I suspect any district you draw up there is going to be blue. And you have other areas of the country that, no matter how you draw the district, it’ll probably end up red.

1. Any member is allowed to say that they don't know something. Most members don't know most things and they don't automatically lose their position.

1a. A younger house could change the rules to simplify them.

2. The 80 of that 20 will also be out the door as well, so it don't see how that would change.

3. I think it would be good for some members of congress to not have legislative backgrounds. Being more experienced in high pressure hearings, public relations, experts in their field, they all need to be there to do what they do best.

The reason you're hearing it about the GOP is because the biggest Dem states have moved to independent commissions for redistricting. So Dems are making inroads to ending partisan gerrymandering and the GOP are trying to leverage it for their own power.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
I think...in terms of the number...there has been a huge decrease in "kids in cages" over the past 1-2 months. Something like an 88% drop as families are finally being reunited under Biden. I guess any kids in cages are too many...but at least Biden's administration has made it a priority to fix those problems instead of exacerbating them.

that is objectively not true... unless you mean there's been a marginal decrease since the initial tidal wave...

Everything he has done related to the border since he was elected and took office has exacerbated the problem.

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Location: Tennessee
According to the Homeland Security Secretary, the number of children being held in CBP facilities dropped from 5,767 in March down to 677 in late April.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2021, 12:49:59 PM »
The reason you're hearing it about the GOP is because the biggest Dem states have moved to independent commissions for redistricting. So Dems are making inroads to ending partisan gerrymandering and the GOP are trying to leverage it for their own power.

I think the idea that "big blue states" use independent commissions is essentially just generalizing from the single case of California (which I completely agree has a huge impact with 12% of all congressional districts in the country).

Seven states use independent redistricting commissions. Three blue states: California, Washington, and Hawaii. Two swing states: Colorado and Michigan. Two Red States: Idaho and Arizona. I suppose after 2020 we could move Arizona into the swing state category. But is Washington a big state?

The next biggest reliably blue states are New York and Illinois which still draw their districts the old fashioned way. In 2010 Illinois had a congressional delegation which included 8 democrats and 11 republicans. After being able to redraw the congressional boundaries after the 2010 census, the democrats picked up four seats and the republicans lost five (Illinois had lost one seat overall). New York had less of a swing because it went into the 2010 census with fewer republicans in congress to begin with, but was still able to ensure that both congressional districts it lost from the 2010 census removed republicans, going from a 21/8 R/D split to a 21/6 split.

Do your numbers have anything to do with the actual amount of gerrymandering? The GOP won the house in 2012 by more than 30 seats despite Democrats getting more than a million more votes than the GOP.

In 2012 Illinois votes for the House was 57-40 and in New York it was 58-31 which over represent Dems by about +9% and +12% respectively.
That same year:
North Carolina went 50-48 yet the seats went 4-9 so -21% for Dems.
Wisconsin 51-49 with seat 3-5 -13%
Michigan 51-46 with seats 5-9 -16%

You're going to expect some amount of imbalance even if you were trying to be fair as possible, but on the whole, the GOP gerrymanders twice as hard as the Dems.
I also don't know of any progressives that would point to either New York or Illinois state politics as something worthy of emulating.

EDIT: New York's percentage.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 12:59:59 PM by FIPurpose »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5747
Everything he has done related to the border since he was elected and took office has exacerbated the problem.

Hey, at least there aren't any marauding caravans under Biden's watch.

https://youtu.be/kG7szS15O8Q?t=88

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2021, 12:57:06 PM »
The reason you're hearing it about the GOP is because the biggest Dem states have moved to independent commissions for redistricting. So Dems are making inroads to ending partisan gerrymandering and the GOP are trying to leverage it for their own power.

I think the idea that "big blue states" use independent commissions is essentially just generalizing from the single case of California (which I completely agree has a huge impact with 12% of all congressional districts in the country).

Seven states use independent redistricting commissions. Three blue states: California, Washington, and Hawaii. Two swing states: Colorado and Michigan. Two Red States: Idaho and Arizona. I suppose after 2020 we could move Arizona into the swing state category. But is Washington a big state?

The next biggest reliably blue states are New York and Illinois which still draw their districts the old fashioned way. In 2010 Illinois had a congressional delegation which included 8 democrats and 11 republicans. After being able to redraw the congressional boundaries after the 2010 census, the democrats picked up four seats and the republicans lost five (Illinois had lost one seat overall). New York had less of a swing because it went into the 2010 census with fewer republicans in congress to begin with, but was still able to ensure that both congressional districts it lost from the 2010 census removed republicans, going from a 21/8 R/D split to a 21/6 split.

And look at Oregon, which is gerrymandered. I will express appreciation to the legislature for creating a balanced committee this time, giving the republicans an equal voice. It was, however, quite telling that the chair was angry that this happened... if she intended it to be a fair process done by the guidelines and rules, it would be a meaningless gesture

Now, as for term limits... I think it's a bad idea. If people don't like their representation, they can vote them out. If you inact term limits, you will transfer a huge amount of power to unelected, unaccountable career beauracrats, ever more subject to lobbying, bribery, and nest feathering due to their relative obscurity.



ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
According to the Homeland Security Secretary, the number of children being held in CBP facilities dropped from 5,767 in March down to 677 in late April.

So Biden executes a Hurt and rescue, and you want to laud him for the effort?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
I think...in terms of the number...there has been a huge decrease in "kids in cages" over the past 1-2 months. Something like an 88% drop as families are finally being reunited under Biden. I guess any kids in cages are too many...but at least Biden's administration has made it a priority to fix those problems instead of exacerbating them.

that is objectively not true... unless you mean there's been a marginal decrease since the initial tidal wave...

Everything he has done related to the border since he was elected and took office has exacerbated the problem.

According to the Homeland Security Secretary, the number of children being held in CBP facilities dropped from 5,767 in March down to 677 in late April.
So Biden executes a Hurt and rescue, and you want to laud him for the effort?

Given the person you're replying to also said "I guess any kids in cages are too many," I suspect this response was more likely intended to demonstrate that you were misinformed (hopefully not deliberately dishonest anyway) than it was to "laud" Biden for the effort.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 01:17:14 PM by JLee »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2021, 01:20:17 PM »
I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

I'm actually way left of center, but I'm happy to criticize any politician that is doing dumb shit.

So I'll just say that I view the vaccine patent waiver as a really good way to never get a good malaria, chagas, or dengue fever vaccine.
Bloomberg: Merkel Pushes Back on Vaccine Patent Waiver in Row With U.S.

Had to chime in here. Waiving the patents on Covid vaccines is the correct, the life saving, the humanitarian thing to do. Especially when US Govt Cheddar led to the development of said vaccines. Last time I checked, the top US pharmaceutical companies were 40 billion dollar hugely successful multinational behemoths. They will be just fine.

In addition, it's going to take some time for any other government or pharm company to produce those vaccines despite the patents. Pfizer and Moderna and J&J still have a HUGE lead for the next couple years. Who knows where the Covid pandemic will be in a couple years, but the sooner it is entirely gone, the better.

JGS

First of all, I don't care if they are fine or not, I care that developing new vaccines is profitable so that they continue to do so for Malaria and Chagas. Second of all, Pfizer didn't take any "US Govt Cheddar." Angela Merkel isn't some conservative hawk or any sort of crackpot.

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Location: Tennessee
I think...in terms of the number...there has been a huge decrease in "kids in cages" over the past 1-2 months. Something like an 88% drop as families are finally being reunited under Biden. I guess any kids in cages are too many...but at least Biden's administration has made it a priority to fix those problems instead of exacerbating them.

that is objectively not true... unless you mean there's been a marginal decrease since the initial tidal wave...

Everything he has done related to the border since he was elected and took office has exacerbated the problem.

According to the Homeland Security Secretary, the number of children being held in CBP facilities dropped from 5,767 in March down to 677 in late April.
So Biden executes a Hurt and rescue, and you want to laud him for the effort?

Given the person you're replying to also said "I guess any kids in cages are too many," I suspect this response was more likely intended to demonstrate that you were misinformed (hopefully not deliberately dishonest anyway) than it was to "laud" Biden for the effort.

Yeah...this.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
while the number of kids in Biden Cages may have decreased, It's decreasing from a high Biden created with his own feckless policy, and the overall level is still elevated.

Not to mention transferring the kids into places unknown and detention-centers-by-another-name isn't solving the problem, just moving it so it's harder to track and hold him accountable; not to mention that the border situation as a whole has fallen apart since Biden took office.

So while the number may have gone down, the situation is a mess and Biden is not effectively addressing it. But you wouldn't be deliberately obfuscating the Biden border crisis with one cherry picked statistic, would you?


Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
while the number of kids in Biden Cages may have decreased, It's decreasing from a high Biden created with his own feckless policy, and the overall level is still elevated.

Not to mention transferring the kids into places unknown and detention-centers-by-another-name isn't solving the problem, just moving it so it's harder to track and hold him accountable; not to mention that the border situation as a whole has fallen apart since Biden took office.

So while the number may have gone down, the situation is a mess and Biden is not effectively addressing it. But you wouldn't be deliberately obfuscating the Biden border crisis with one cherry picked statistic, would you?

Yes it seems the Biden admin is playing a shell game and "hiding" the kids in another tent next to the now empty tent the kids just came from. Linked to Dem rep from TX explaining just that.

https://youtu.be/bUgZhm0G_Fc

All this tells me is politicians and people in general are hypocrites - shocking!! /s

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
while the number of kids in Biden Cages may have decreased, It's decreasing from a high Biden created with his own feckless policy, and the overall level is still elevated.

Not to mention transferring the kids into places unknown and detention-centers-by-another-name isn't solving the problem, just moving it so it's harder to track and hold him accountable; not to mention that the border situation as a whole has fallen apart since Biden took office.

So while the number may have gone down, the situation is a mess and Biden is not effectively addressing it. But you wouldn't be deliberately obfuscating the Biden border crisis with one cherry picked statistic, would you?

Well, if your argument is simply "the numbers don't matter so I'm still right" this is going to be a difficult conversation to have.

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Location: Tennessee
while the number of kids in Biden Cages may have decreased, It's decreasing from a high Biden created with his own feckless policy, and the overall level is still elevated.

Not to mention transferring the kids into places unknown and detention-centers-by-another-name isn't solving the problem, just moving it so it's harder to track and hold him accountable; not to mention that the border situation as a whole has fallen apart since Biden took office.

So while the number may have gone down, the situation is a mess and Biden is not effectively addressing it. But you wouldn't be deliberately obfuscating the Biden border crisis with one cherry picked statistic, would you?

I quoted statistics. You seem to be having an issue ascribing intent to those statistics. I'm not quite sure what to say to that other than it seems maybe you just want to argue that Biden is evil. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing...just stating what the actual facts are. So if that's "cherry picking"...then I guess so? Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on you to offer any sort of statistical back-up for pretty much anything you've claimed in your posts so far.

ETA: Have a nice weekend :)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 03:22:36 PM by brandon1827 »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14907
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #77 on: May 07, 2021, 05:29:55 PM »

If you inact term limits, you will transfer a huge amount of power to unelected, unaccountable career beauracrats, ever more subject to lobbying, bribery, and nest feathering due to their relative obscurity.

Can you explain how term limits would transfer power to civil servants?  Because I’m not following that argument at all...

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #78 on: May 07, 2021, 06:41:06 PM »
Would Pfizer have developed their vaccine with the government billion dollar guarantee? If not, then your argument is moot. Money is money.

Now lives are also lives, and are more important than money (whether American, Indian, or Brazilian), thus my agreement with the Biden choice to waive the patents.

So how far do we want to take this?  Certainly when companies have invested enough money and research into auto driving cars, the technology will save lives.  If lives are more important than money then will we invalidate Tesla's patent on any auto driving technology and reassure ourselves that we are doing a good decision because Tesla is worth $600B and will "be fine"?

I could pick any number of industries and companies who are quite well off and whose products could potentially save lives if provided cheaply to everyone.  If all your company has essentially is the IP it has invested in, then taking that IP is sort of nationalizing the company.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14907
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #79 on: May 07, 2021, 07:09:40 PM »
Would Pfizer have developed their vaccine with the government billion dollar guarantee? If not, then your argument is moot. Money is money.

Now lives are also lives, and are more important than money (whether American, Indian, or Brazilian), thus my agreement with the Biden choice to waive the patents.

So how far do we want to take this?  Certainly when companies have invested enough money and research into auto driving cars, the technology will save lives.  If lives are more important than money then will we invalidate Tesla's patent on any auto driving technology and reassure ourselves that we are doing a good decision because Tesla is worth $600B and will "be fine"?

I could pick any number of industries and companies who are quite well off and whose products could potentially save lives if provided cheaply to everyone.  If all your company has essentially is the IP it has invested in, then taking that IP is sort of nationalizing the company.

So you are arguing the “slippery slope” fallacy here.  If we allow this to happen for a global pandemic, there’s nothing from stopping it from being used again and again.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #80 on: May 07, 2021, 07:35:54 PM »
Can you explain how term limits would transfer power to civil servants?  Because I’m not following that argument at all...

The long running theory I've seen is that the longer a politician is in power the dirtier they get. That there's no such thing as a clean politician, only a new one that hasn't been bought off by special interests yet. So opinions differ, but most commonly I see people supporting 2 terms for senators (so one election, one re-election) and the same 12 years for House reps, for fairness. The theory is that with fewer election cycles over a career, politicians are less likely to pick up more and more special interests and illegal acts by getting deeper and deeper embedded in government.

I understand the argument and think term limits do have merit, but I'd honestly start them off even longer; perhaps 3 terms for the US Senate and an equal 18 years for House members. That's still plenty long enough that you don't have nothing but a revolving door of know-nothings in government but prevents any of those 40-50 year embedded fixtures who have built up a cabal of evil around themselves with their decades and decades of contacts.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3571
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #81 on: May 07, 2021, 08:28:54 PM »

If you inact term limits, you will transfer a huge amount of power to unelected, unaccountable career beauracrats, ever more subject to lobbying, bribery, and nest feathering due to their relative obscurity.

Can you explain how term limits would transfer power to civil servants?  Because I’m not following that argument at all...

The idea is that the Congressional aides and civil servants could work for that office for many times longer than the elected, but regularly termed-out representative. The member doesn't stick around long enough to be effectively bought off, but they also don't stick around long enough to get really good at the job so they depend on the "man behind the curtain" to tell them the rules, tricks, and who to talk to in order to get things done.  The most productive members of Congress (which includes all the nefarious activities as well) are those who have all the parliamentary rules memorized or have the right lobbyists and media personalities on speed dial.  If they don't stick around to learn this trade, the unelected members of their staff will fill that role. The civil servant is the one getting the lobbyists' attention and the member is forced to rely on their connections and expertise. Also, junior politicians are easily influenced by party bosses that don't have established reputations or track records yet.  The US Congress was livid when Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was made because it cut way too close to home.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Michael Lewis came out with a book recently sort of on this topic.

The CDC director used to be a civil career track unrelated to whatever politician was in power. However, that transitioned at some point and congress decided that the CDC head should instead be picked by the Preisident and make it a political appointment.

This has multiple consequences:
1. Instead of the head of the organization being around for 10 years, the org has leadership turn over potentially every few years at the whim of the president.
2. This makes the head of these orgs feel greater pressure from the current political climate
3. This also makes orgs start to think short-term. If they won't be in office in 5 years, then they're not going to think more than 5 years out.

Whereas when civil servants work there way up the ladder:
1. They have most often shown decades of loyalty to the organization and believe in its mission
2. They care about their own reputation and usually want to do the best in the role they can for as long as they can.
3. They are highly experienced in the org and know its ins and outs.
4. They don't follow the political cycle and can continue to work for the people no matter who's in power.

There are down sides to both, but I honestly can't think of a lot of upsides for the large number of political appointment positions we have. Trump showed that basically any government position can be filled by sycophants, bringing the work of the government to a screeching halt. I'll take my chances with career civil-servants.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #83 on: May 08, 2021, 07:08:59 AM »
So you are arguing the “slippery slope” fallacy here.  If we allow this to happen for a global pandemic, there’s nothing from stopping it from being used again and again.

You call it a fallacy, I call it precedence.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #84 on: May 08, 2021, 11:18:41 AM »
Would Pfizer have developed their vaccine with the government billion dollar guarantee? If not, then your argument is moot. Money is money.

Now lives are also lives, and are more important than money (whether American, Indian, or Brazilian), thus my agreement with the Biden choice to waive the patents.

So how far do we want to take this?  Certainly when companies have invested enough money and research into auto driving cars, the technology will save lives.  If lives are more important than money then will we invalidate Tesla's patent on any auto driving technology and reassure ourselves that we are doing a good decision because Tesla is worth $600B and will "be fine"?

I could pick any number of industries and companies who are quite well off and whose products could potentially save lives if provided cheaply to everyone.  If all your company has essentially is the IP it has invested in, then taking that IP is sort of nationalizing the company.

So you are arguing the “slippery slope” fallacy here.  If we allow this to happen for a global pandemic, there’s nothing from stopping it from being used again and again.

The argument for abrogating patent rights would be much more convincing if it's proponents would explain how that's going to increase vaccine production.

The WSJ has an article describing the manufacturing process at a high level.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/mrna-covid-19-vaccines-are-fast-to-make-but-hard-to-scale-11614776401

A much bigger problem is how a new manufacturer would develop facilities that could produce high quality vaccines in volume.    Intellectual property rights could be handled under a licensing agreement wherever, whenever this type of facility is available.


Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
Maybe India could prioritize vaccine research instead of being so fascinated with gold.

Indian households have stocked up to 25,000 tonnes of gold: World Gold Council
https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/indian-households-have-stocked-up-to-25000-tonnes-of-gold-world-gold-council/story/348598.html


25,000 tonnes of gold is worth about 1.5 trillion dollars at today's gold price.   That would make a few batches of COVID vaccine.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Maybe India could prioritize vaccine research instead of being so fascinated with gold.

They're producing ~90M doses/month, they just have a lot of people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55571793

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7280
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Maybe India could prioritize vaccine research instead of being so fascinated with gold.

Indian households have stocked up to 25,000 tonnes of gold: World Gold Council
https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/indian-households-have-stocked-up-to-25000-tonnes-of-gold-world-gold-council/story/348598.html


25,000 tonnes of gold is worth about 1.5 trillion dollars at today's gold price.   That would make a few batches of COVID vaccine.

It's easy to mock fun at other cultures and countries and their people's spending habits.

An Indian might take a look at the typical American's spending on SUVs/trucks, fast food and netflix and think that is just as ridiculous.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
It's easy to mock fun at other cultures and countries and their people's spending habits.

An Indian might take a look at the typical American's spending on SUVs/trucks, fast food and netflix and think that is just as ridiculous.

I think it is fair to look at other people's spending habits when they are asking to take money from your pocket.

Although Germany, UK and quite a few other countries disagree with Biden on releasing the patent protection...which is quite curious.

"(CNN)Germany is resisting momentum to lift patent protection for Covid-19 vaccines, saying Thursday that a US decision to support such waivers "has significant implications for vaccine production."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/06/europe/germany-us-covid-vaccine-patents-intl/index.html
« Last Edit: May 08, 2021, 08:27:42 PM by Roland of Gilead »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7280
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
It's easy to mock fun at other cultures and countries and their people's spending habits.

An Indian might take a look at the typical American's spending on SUVs/trucks, fast food and netflix and think that is just as ridiculous.

I think it is fair to look at other people's spending habits when they are asking to take money from your pocket.

Although Germany, UK and quite a few other countries disagree with Biden on releasing the patent protection...which is quite curious.

"(CNN)Germany is resisting momentum to lift patent protection for Covid-19 vaccines, saying Thursday that a US decision to support such waivers "has significant implications for vaccine production."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/06/europe/germany-us-covid-vaccine-patents-intl/index.html

These sorts of decisions between countries don't fall under the usual tropes of welfare / stealing from the rich/my pocket etc etc.

A fellow democratic country is in need of help. Given the current state of the world, it might be seen as investment in building a bridge between nations, and earning some much needed trust that can be repaid in kind in future.

There are benefits to doing these things beyond short term profit.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
These sorts of decisions between countries don't fall under the usual tropes of welfare / stealing from the rich/my pocket etc etc.

A fellow democratic country is in need of help. Given the current state of the world, it might be seen as investment in building a bridge between nations, and earning some much needed trust that can be repaid in kind in future.

There are benefits to doing these things beyond short term profit.

Oh most definitely.   I think there should be more gratitude from the politicians though if they are going to take from one person's pocket and hand it to another person in need.   Elizabeth Warren just pumps her fist in the air and sneers at the "greedy pharma" companies and their billions.  I really can't stand her, Biden is quite a bit better at tact.

fuzzy math

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 39
  • Location: At the lake
I'm personally quite thrilled by the idea that companies who didn't have the money, R&D, facilities or people in place to develop their own vaccine, can now utilize intellectual property to attempt to replicate vaccines in a very short time as a bid to outpace the established pharma companies (who will no doubt catch up on the backlog very soon). What could possibly go wrong?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14907
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
These sorts of decisions between countries don't fall under the usual tropes of welfare / stealing from the rich/my pocket etc etc.

A fellow democratic country is in need of help. Given the current state of the world, it might be seen as investment in building a bridge between nations, and earning some much needed trust that can be repaid in kind in future.

There are benefits to doing these things beyond short term profit.

Oh most definitely.   I think there should be more gratitude from the politicians though if they are going to take from one person's pocket and hand it to another person in need. 

I was taught that you don’t give expecting a reward or praise or outward displays of gratitude - you do it because it’s the right thing to do.

Once you start expecting something in return for your generosity, you are no longer doing it for the right reasons, but for your own ego.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2465
  • Location: Germany
These sorts of decisions between countries don't fall under the usual tropes of welfare / stealing from the rich/my pocket etc etc.

A fellow democratic country is in need of help. Given the current state of the world, it might be seen as investment in building a bridge between nations, and earning some much needed trust that can be repaid in kind in future.

There are benefits to doing these things beyond short term profit.

Oh most definitely.   I think there should be more gratitude from the politicians though if they are going to take from one person's pocket and hand it to another person in need. 

I was taught that you don’t give expecting a reward or praise or outward displays of gratitude - you do it because it’s the right thing to do.

Once you start expecting something in return for your generosity, you are no longer doing it for the right reasons, but for your own ego.
Arguably that is always true. The neolibs definitely think that. I am ashamed to say that I am nearly of their opinion on that - I think it is true in most cases.
But there are differences. Having the warm feeling of being a nice guy or being an attention whore for example.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4454
Maybe India could prioritize vaccine research instead of being so fascinated with gold.

Indian households have stocked up to 25,000 tonnes of gold: World Gold Council
https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/indian-households-have-stocked-up-to-25000-tonnes-of-gold-world-gold-council/story/348598.html


25,000 tonnes of gold is worth about 1.5 trillion dollars at today's gold price.   That would make a few batches of COVID vaccine.

It's easy to mock fun at other cultures and countries and their people's spending habits.

An Indian might take a look at the typical American's spending on SUVs/trucks, fast food and netflix and think that is just as ridiculous.

Indians have to stockpile gold because three years ago they eliminated every bill greater than $10.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Indians have to stockpile gold because three years ago they eliminated every bill greater than $10.

Saving wealth in gold is still very popular in many/most countries where the population doesn't trust the fiat currency. Ex: all my friends from Vietnam. India, AFAIK, has a double dose of gold loving where it is also very appreciated for jewelry.

But yea, I think that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in Asia save for maybe Japan and Singapore where the locals truly trust the currency and don't hold any gold when possible.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18433
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Indians have to stockpile gold because three years ago they eliminated every bill greater than $10.

Saving wealth in gold is still very popular in many/most countries where the population doesn't trust the fiat currency. Ex: all my friends from Vietnam. India, AFAIK, has a double dose of gold loving where it is also very appreciated for jewelry.

But yea, I think that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in Asia save for maybe Japan and Singapore where the locals truly trust the currency and don't hold any gold when possible.

Have you ever seen an Hindu wedding?  Gold is the symbol of Lakshmi and is a super popular wedding gift.  And then you have the hundreds of millions of unbanked people who use it simply as a store of wealth.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4729
  • Age: 126
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
SUV vs gold thing.

I suspect in ten years the gold will be worth something. Not dumb at all IMHO.

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
SUV vs gold thing.

I suspect in ten years the gold will be worth something. Not dumb at all IMHO.

A lot of these countries also simply convert their own currency to US dollars. There's a bit of a load fee with the banks for conversion, but the US dollar has been the most reliable hard [but easier to carry] currency for a long time in less economically developed countries.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6669
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Biden Outrage of the day
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2021, 06:20:55 AM »
I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

I'm actually way left of center, but I'm happy to criticize any politician that is doing dumb shit.

So I'll just say that I view the vaccine patent waiver as a really good way to never get a good malaria, chagas, or dengue fever vaccine.
Bloomberg: Merkel Pushes Back on Vaccine Patent Waiver in Row With U.S.
I'll just say that the USA is not the only game in town on those vaccines -

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-23-malaria-vaccine-becomes-first-achieve-who-specified-75-efficacy-goal