Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of reasons to hate on Reimer (cannot stand the liar), but this isn't one of them. He disclosed the info and didn't hide it. His response is over the top, per usual. That the CE (another one I am not too fond of) should tell the unions to back off a Councilmember? On what planet would that happen? Not earth

Couldn't agree more that he's a liar, but disclosing a conflict of interest is not the same thing as eliminating a conflict of interest, though Riemer seems to think it is.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of reasons to hate on Reimer (cannot stand the liar), but this isn't one of them. He disclosed the info and didn't hide it. His response is over the top, per usual. That the CE (another one I am not too fond of) should tell the unions to back off a Councilmember? On what planet would that happen? Not earth

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every mandate has a positive benefit for vaccine makers. That point has been made repeatedly in the media and it’s been reflected in daily stock movement. There’s also a future benefit because it guarantees demand as annual shots become the norm.

Government employees should avoid participating in decisions that affect their relatives’ employers even their position is right.

This is even more tenuous than the extremely tenuous link in the one-time vaccine requirement actually proposed.

But hey, if Pfizer stock goes up because Montgomery County requires roughly 2,000 people to get 1 of 3 available vaccines, you can come back and say I told you so.

NP. There is no requirement for a gain or loss or even size of effect. The statute seems clear, even if very restrictive. In VA, we had a problem with the governor's wife receiving gifts. That didn't go well. Recuse yourself and avoid any seeming impropriety.

People don’t seem to understand that the appear of a conflict of interest = a conflict of interest.

I’m not too fussed about this mandate, but it does show Riemers proclivity to believe that he stands above or a part of the great masses. I guess that’s what happens when you grow up rich.

You don't seem to understand that a lot of people don't think there's even the appearance of a conflict of interest here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every mandate has a positive benefit for vaccine makers. That point has been made repeatedly in the media and it’s been reflected in daily stock movement. There’s also a future benefit because it guarantees demand as annual shots become the norm.

Government employees should avoid participating in decisions that affect their relatives’ employers even their position is right.

This is even more tenuous than the extremely tenuous link in the one-time vaccine requirement actually proposed.

But hey, if Pfizer stock goes up because Montgomery County requires roughly 2,000 people to get 1 of 3 available vaccines, you can come back and say I told you so.

NP. There is no requirement for a gain or loss or even size of effect. The statute seems clear, even if very restrictive. In VA, we had a problem with the governor's wife receiving gifts. That didn't go well. Recuse yourself and avoid any seeming impropriety.

People don’t seem to understand that the appear of a conflict of interest = a conflict of interest.

I’m not too fussed about this mandate, but it does show Riemers proclivity to believe that he stands above or a part of the great masses. I guess that’s what happens when you grow up rich.

You don't seem to understand that a lot of people don't think there's even the appearance of a conflict of interest here.

Anonymous wrote:

I’m not too fussed about this mandate, but it does show Riemers proclivity to believe that he stands above or a part of the great masses. I guess that’s what happens when you grow up rich.

The irony of this thread is that I'm not a huge Riemer fan, in part because he gives of lazy rich kid vibes that remind me of every single less-qualified better-connected white dude that I've ever had to deal with in DC.

But it reminds me that I genuinely like his wife, and therefore maybe he's not as much of a tool as he seems.

I’m not too fussed about this mandate, but it does show Riemers proclivity to believe that he stands above or a part of the great masses. I guess that’s what happens when you grow up rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every mandate has a positive benefit for vaccine makers. That point has been made repeatedly in the media and it’s been reflected in daily stock movement. There’s also a future benefit because it guarantees demand as annual shots become the norm.

Government employees should avoid participating in decisions that affect their relatives’ employers even their position is right.

This is even more tenuous than the extremely tenuous link in the one-time vaccine requirement actually proposed.

But hey, if Pfizer stock goes up because Montgomery County requires roughly 2,000 people to get 1 of 3 available vaccines, you can come back and say I told you so.

NP. There is no requirement for a gain or loss or even size of effect. The statute seems clear, even if very restrictive. In VA, we had a problem with the governor's wife receiving gifts. That didn't go well. Recuse yourself and avoid any seeming impropriety.

People don’t seem to understand that the appear of a conflict of interest = a conflict of interest.

I’m not too fussed about this mandate, but it does show Riemers proclivity to believe that he stands above or a part of the great masses. I guess that’s what happens when you grow up rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every mandate has a positive benefit for vaccine makers. That point has been made repeatedly in the media and it’s been reflected in daily stock movement. There’s also a future benefit because it guarantees demand as annual shots become the norm.

Government employees should avoid participating in decisions that affect their relatives’ employers even their position is right.

This is even more tenuous than the extremely tenuous link in the one-time vaccine requirement actually proposed.

But hey, if Pfizer stock goes up because Montgomery County requires roughly 2,000 people to get 1 of 3 available vaccines, you can come back and say I told you so.

NP. There is no requirement for a gain or loss or even size of effect. The statute seems clear, even if very restrictive. In VA, we had a problem with the governor's wife receiving gifts. That didn't go well. Recuse yourself and avoid any seeming impropriety.

Anonymous wrote:

Precisely. And yes, they will be able to fill the positions, especially in the fire department, so don’t bother with your tired “HURR DURR I BET UD BE OK WITH AN UNVAXXED FIREFIGHTER IF UR HOUSE WAS ON FIRE!!!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Every mandate has a positive benefit for vaccine makers. That point has been made repeatedly in the media and it’s been reflected in daily stock movement. There’s also a future benefit because it guarantees demand as annual shots become the norm.

Government employees should avoid participating in decisions that affect their relatives’ employers even their position is right.

This is even more tenuous than the extremely tenuous link in the one-time vaccine requirement actually proposed.

But hey, if Pfizer stock goes up because Montgomery County requires roughly 2,000 people to get 1 of 3 available vaccines, you can come back and say I told you so.

Anonymous wrote:

Every mandate has a positive benefit for vaccine makers. That point has been made repeatedly in the media and it’s been reflected in daily stock movement. There’s also a future benefit because it guarantees demand as annual shots become the norm.

Government employees should avoid participating in decisions that affect their relatives’ employers even their position is right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Oh good grief.

Seriously, there are plenty of things to yell at Riemer about. This isn't one of them.

What's funny is the Riemer bro challenged PP to cite the law and even posted a link to it only to have the PP provide a pincite that was directly on point. The Riemer bros never disappoint. You can always count on the Riemer bros to deliver rarified levels of stupidity and arrogance, not unlike Riemer himself.

But it isn't.

Also, I'm not a Riemer supporter, and I'm not a bro.

Where does it miss in your opinion?

Please explain what effect a vaccine requirement for the remaining unvaccinated Montgomery County employees will have on Pfizer.