BuffaloHokie13

I don't know why, and I don't plan to assume. The point I was trying to make was that if Fauci is too busy to get additional information about Covid, he's definitely too busy for anything else non-Covid related - congress included. I think the point made sense within the context of the conversation, since @SectionC3 entertained it with an answer.

Yeah, no idea on scope here either. My expectation is that the purpose was to fish for out of context soundbytes that sound contradictory to Trump to spread through the press, which would be a spectacular waste of time regardless of duration, but I readily admit that the thought is based on my personal bias.

They are the experts assigned to the team. In my view their job is to gather as much data and perspective as possible to advise the leadership. You are absolutely right, they can't analyze everything, which is why they should talk to people doing different analysis and shift focus if something prominent arises. As an aside, can I assume that you support Trump blocking Fauci from appearing in front of congress since his time is limited?

Fauci and Birx are her peers. Pence is the leadership.

Reread your first sentence, out loud, while looking in the mirror. In a global pandemic you take data and analysis from credentialed professionals when you can get it. More data, more better.

You're right. She's probably been studying data on some other infectious disease since March

If she's credentialed, as you say, why wouldn't you want her to talk to our team? What if she's looking at data we don't have? Or, what if she offers an alternative perspective on data we have looked at? The worst case scenario is that they do in fact know every single thing she does and the conclusions are more validated.

More like 2020 as Biden continues his cognitive decline and credible accusations.

I can get my ice cream up to about 7% ABV... higher if the presentation is a milkshake instead of a solid.

After dwelling on it further, if you draw the line at over/under 50 then the over group makes up 47% of positive cases and a whopping 95% of the fatalities. I mean, I know what you said is true, but seeing the actual numbers here is a little shocking.

The DC info pamphlet from yesterday is interesting. 71% of cases are people under 60, but 82% of deaths are over 60. Another that stands out is that 47% of positive cases were African Americans, but the same demographic makes up 79% of the deaths. https://coronavirus.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/coronavirus/page_content/attachments/Situational-Update-Presentation_05042020.pdf

So, a statement that in no way claims he inherited bad coronavirus tests? That statement appears to be directed at the CDC policies on developing tests in general, for any potential pandemic. On the topic of the quote you just provided, I'd love to know the context of what red tape was cut, and why it existed in the first place. That would be journalism worth reading!

I admit, I didn't click the link so maybe there is context I don't have, but I have multiple issues with the portion you copied alone. 1. The claim is generically stated as being said multiple times rather than a specific time and source. This is probably because nobody made this particular claim. Lots of people made 2 different but similar claims, which takes me to number 2. If you can find someone who specifically said that the Trump admin inherited bad tests from the previous administration, I'd love to see it. 2. The claim seems to be the combination of parts of two different claims. One of those claims is that the Trump WH inherited the depleted PPE stock, which was blamed on Obama as the 'truth' implies. There was ample time to resupply prior to 2016. There were also 3 years for Trump to resupply. The second claim is that the tests put forth by the WHO were bad. I believe the tests were developed in Germany, but the ones we would have received were going to be manufactured in China. Trump decided to try to do the tests here instead of taking them from the WHO, and they failed due to a bad blank IIRC. If he were to direct blame for this, it would likely be towards China as he didn't trust them, and to a lesser extent the WHO. 3. The 'truth' section is certainly factually accurate. But it has no relation to reality or any actual claims as far as I can tell. When he has blamed Obama it has been for things that actually happened. Now Trump may have a share of the blame in those things, like the PPE scenario, but they happened. He has been blaming China for lots of things for at least a decade.

You're talking about a group that, to this day, recommends using internet explorer instead of modern browsers if their sites don't work properly. I'd just like to add that even Microsoft has given up on internet explorer at this point. That's why they pushed Edge so hard.

Was this before or after they took federal relief money? Is there a comparison of the amounts? Just curious.

Fair, I did miss the date amidst the giggles. Though I originally assumed sitting presidents were left out. I guess what we learned is that no matter who is currently president, they're definitely the worst.

I think the root of this is something that the people you're arguing with would agree with. In this country intent matters. Or at least it did. Could you expand on what this 'different reason' would be?

Just going to leave this Quinnipiac poll here... https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

My research says that the WHO didn't have evidence of human to human transmission until the end of January. What intelligence did Trump have in November that either the WHO also ignored, or that trumped their information? Surely you have a specific and concise answer...

Which was what exactly? Please be specific.

Boys and Girls, we made it. I am at least as prepared as western governments were for Covid.

It's a spin and not a juke, but I was in the 5th row on this side of the field for this one and it hurt.

And that's the rub. He hasn't definitively proven he's one or the other (probably because the truth was always going to be in the middle somewhere). If he came in and had the same numbers as Mahomes' first 2 years as a starter this wouldn't be a thing. As it stands, he's a 56% passer who averages 6.6 YPA, 209 total YPG, and 1.68 TDs per game that has had success in the win/loss department and has won over the locker room. The 2020 roster is the best he has ever been on and it will be interesting to see where he takes them.

Fine, let's go with Mitch Trubisky then. Top 10 pick, got weapons put around him, averages exactly the same total attempts per game as Allen, has a strong Defense to lean on when needed. As far as your second paragraph, you're either using poor sources or applying your own BBFS bias to the statements. Heck, I even said they could win the super bowl. The roster is very good around him. He'll determine how far they get. That is specific to Allen. Not every team has the quality roster we do.

Well then it's very likely to be Murphy. Hughes, Addison, Murphy, Epenesa, Johnson at DE Oliver, Lotulelei, Jefferson, Butler, Phillips inside One's gotta go. Johnson is the least accomplished, Murphy saves the most money. I think that's basically the point GB was making. And that's assuming Vincent Taylor, Mike Love, Cox Jr., and Jonathan Woodard are automatic cuts.