Vaccine Suspicion thread (split from Trump in Charge)

[Gorbles]

I'm sorry but your current search is not meaningful. The article is from October 12, 2020, and any suppression would have long since expired by now.

So the claim is that said suppression was time-limited and no longer in effect?

Where is the evidence to support this claim? Nobody took screenshots? Nobody contrasted it to literally any other Google search?

I can search for a literal TypeScript error that is generated by a popular library, and still not get the definition for that error as the first result. That doesn't strike me as evidence that Google is suppressing the definition of the error. This is something I do a lot, too. I have years of experience as a developer using Google to get information I want. Even with a brilliantly-specified search, for a popular thing, the result I want being first isn't guaranteed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And before you ask - I am pro choice, but not to a sufficient degree to vote Democratic in the last election.

So you're not really pro choice, then.

I got a COVID vaccine but I find it a bit odd that any questioning about it is so taboo.

Do you mean people asking other people if they've been vaccinated?

Some people here lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated, so there's a segment of society that is adamantly against being asked such things.

For me, being vaccinated (multiple times, to boot) has meant that delivery people aren't afraid to deliver to my door, rather than making me come down to the lobby. The one incident where a pharmacy delivery person decided to drop my meds on the mud mat outside the lobby and take off, rather than even just carefully passing it to me through the door, resulted in her being fired as a delivery person from that pharmacy - as I pointed out that if she treated me that way when I actually could go down to the lobby, how was she treating the people who couldn't?


@Archon8 : Your statement that it's just fine for elected officials to lie to people about medical issues because "freedom of speech" is just one more reason why I'm relieved not to live in your country.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Questioning the Covid vaccine isn't taboo. It's just that people without any sort of medical degree who are making claims they cannot support need to be ignored.
But it's more important to those people to peddle their missinformation than the people dying as a result of that missinformation.

Your freedom of speech is not our obligation to consider your bollocks.

 

[Archon8]

So you're not really pro choice, then.

Nobody with half a brain agrees with a political party on every issue. You always have to pick and choose which person to vote for even though you're not going to agree with them on everything. Trump's position that the states decide their own abortion policy was not ideal, as I would prefer it be nationally legal, but it was not a dealbreaker considering I am in staunch agreement with him on multiple other issues.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Your "not a dealbreaker" is contributing to women dying due to lack of proper care when they're miscarrying, not to mention women being forced to carry and birth children they don't want, and incest victims being forced to carry and birth a baby that is the offspring of the child-mother's own father, brother, or uncle.

 

[Archon8]

Your "not a dealbreaker" is contributing to women dying due to lack of proper care when they're miscarrying, not to mention women being forced to carry and birth children they don't want, and incest victims being forced to carry and birth a baby that is the offspring of the child-mother's own father, brother, or uncle.

Those are definitely bad circumstances, and I am sympathetic to those who go through them. However, there are other important issues - immigration, crime, economics, foreign policy, national security, etc. Sorry but I'm not putting national abortion rights above them in priority.

 

[Gorbles]

"I'm pro choice, but I'm in staunch agreement with the Republican party on every other possible aspect of policy " isn't the ringing endorsement you probably want it to be. Own your vote. Being pro-choice at a personal level matters little, if at all, if you vote for the anti pro-choice party.

Everything is a compromise in politics when the party options are so limited, I agree. But don't pretend that the compromise doesn't have consequences that you voted for, knowing them in advance.

 

[Archon8]

"I'm pro choice, but I'm in staunch agreement with the Republican party on every other possible aspect of policy " isn't the ringing endorsement you probably want it to be. Own your vote. Being pro-choice at a personal level matters little, if at all, if you vote for the anti pro-choice party.

Everything is a compromise in politics when the party options are so limited, I agree. But don't pretend that the compromise doesn't have consequences that you voted for, knowing them in advance.

I'm not attempting to get an endorsement of anything. I was just clarifying a view. From a cursory search, it appears 23% of Republicans are pro choice, so it is feasible that there could in the future be legislation that will codify federal abortion rights. If anything though, the current Trump position is politically pro-choice, because instead of imposing any policy on the states he is leaving it to the people to decide. I respect that, it's very pro-democracy.

 

[Gorbles]

If anything though, the current Trump position is politically pro-choice, because instead of imposing any policy on the states he is leaving it to the people to decide. I respect that, it's very pro-democracy.

I disagree, because Trump exists at the federal level and is making things happen by signing executive orders. It's not really pro-democracy at all except in the items he chooses to devolve, which is generally a Republican position so that they can win in their local battlegrounds vs. having to deal with Democratic lawmaking at the federal level.

The scale is grand (and it applies to things like vaccination as well). The US is huge. States can't get it all done independently. Y'all share a landmass. The existence of the federal as a concept is pretty much guaranteed. The problem is when a party objects to federal, but consolidates and in some cases uses pretty heavy-handed applications of federal power in order to get what they want done.

 

[Archon8]

I disagree, because Trump exists at the federal level and is making things happen by signing executive orders. It's not really pro-democracy at all except in the items he chooses to devolve, which is generally a Republican position so that they can win in their local battlegrounds vs. having to deal with Democratic lawmaking at the federal level.

The scale is grand (and it applies to things like vaccination as well). The US is huge. States can't get it all done independently. Y'all share a landmass. The existence of the federal as a concept is pretty much guaranteed. The problem is when a party objects to federal, but consolidates and in some cases uses pretty heavy-handed applications of federal power in order to get what they want done.

There is no Democratic lawmaking at the federal level, as Republicans hold majorities in both houses of Congress. These executive orders are generally related to campaign promises, so there is a popular mandate to make them happen. If you want to talk about someone being anti-democracy, it's Democratic senators trying to hold up the nominations of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. Both of them appeared repeatedly with Trump at his rallies, and voters were well aware that they would be part of his administration, and voted for him with that knowledge. It is an aspect of the public will that RFK Jr. be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and opposition to his appointment is trying to overturn the will of the people. Well, an elected senator generally has this limited right, because we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy. But the left likes constantly talking about democracy, and Trump repeatedly said "Make America Healthy Again" while standing with RFK Jr, and won the popular vote after doing this.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, but that idiot didn't like red dye 3, and you're complaining about adequate testing, so 50 years must not meet the bar of we're going with ol' Brainworm's take on America being healthy.

 

[Archon8]

Yeah, but that idiot didn't like red dye 3, and you're complaining about adequate testing, so 50 years must not meet the bar of we're going with ol' Brainworm's take on America being healthy.

In October 2023, California banned Red Dye 3. I presume you also are calling Gavin Newsom an idiot? Or just when a Republican does it?

 

[Gorbles]

There is no Democratic lawmaking at the federal level, as Republicans hold majorities in both houses of Congress.

I'm talking theoretically, the general principle that you're advocating of Trump leaving it to the states as a positive "pro-democracy" move. The logistics of the US make this untenable unless states harden their own borders against each other, which would have untold ramifications down the line.

These executive orders are generally related to campaign promises, so there is a popular mandate to make them happen. If you want to talk about someone being anti-democracy, it's Democratic senators trying to hold up the nominations of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. Both of them appeared repeatedly with Trump at his rallies, and voters were well aware that they would be part of his administration, and voted for him with that knowledge. It is an aspect of the public will that RFK Jr. be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and opposition to his appointment is trying to overturn the will of the people. Well, an elected senator generally has this limited right, because we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy. But the left likes constantly talking about democracy, and Trump repeatedly said "Make America Healthy Again" while standing with RFK Jr, and won the popular vote after doing this.

If Trump using executive orders is a reflection of the democratic power he possesses, I'd argue that Democratic senators doing whatever it is you're alleging they're doing is also simply them using the powers at their disposal, however limited. They were elected, were they not?

 

[Archon8]

If Trump using executive orders is a reflection of the democratic power he possesses, I'd argue that Democratic senators doing whatever it is you're alleging they're doing is also simply them using the powers at their disposal, however limited. They were elected, were they not?

This is a good philosophical question. You could say that Trump has the democracy advantage, because in the most recent election, his agenda was voted for by the majority of people. However, in our system of government, Congress does have certain abilities through checks and balances, and other elected officials are not bound by the recent election, giving them a republic advantage. So I guess for me, as an American who supports checks and balances, I respect the ability of Democratic senators to try to obstruct Trump's nominations, but as someone who is strongly supportive of his agenda, I find it greatly irritating.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Take your kill-issue to its thread and out of the vaccination one.

It's a health care issue, and I don't see a mod badge under your name.

There is no Democratic lawmaking at the federal level, as Republicans hold majorities in both houses of Congress. These executive orders are generally related to campaign promises, so there is a popular mandate to make them happen. If you want to talk about someone being anti-democracy, it's Democratic senators trying to hold up the nominations of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. Both of them appeared repeatedly with Trump at his rallies, and voters were well aware that they would be part of his administration, and voted for him with that knowledge. It is an aspect of the public will that RFK Jr. be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and opposition to his appointment is trying to overturn the will of the people. Well, an elected senator generally has this limited right, because we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy. But the left likes constantly talking about democracy, and Trump repeatedly said "Make America Healthy Again" while standing with RFK Jr, and won the popular vote after doing this.

 

[Farm Boy]

In October 2023, California banned Red Dye 3. I presume you also are calling Gavin Newsom an idiot? Or just when a Republican does it?

Oh summer child with your little axe to grind. I don't [snip] care. Brainworms was a Democrat most of the time he's been an idiot.

Moderator Action: Edited by Birdjaguar

 

[Archon8]

Oh summer child with your little axe to grind. I don't [snip] care. Brainworms was a Democrat most of the time he's been an idiot.

The insults are cute, but the real point is that you tried to say RFK Jr was an idiot for banning Red Dye 3, when it's already been banned in the European Union, New Zealand, and Australia, now California, oh and in cosmetics by the FDA since 1990.. it's been linked "to cancer in rodents and to worsened attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and other behavioral symptoms." I think you got to just admit you were not aware of the research on Red Dye 3, and it was not justified to try to insult RFK Jr over it.

 

[Farm Boy]

And both chocolate and grapes are poisonous in dogs. Which is every bit as relevant, and in the same way, as all the cancer causing biological mechanisms in red dye #3 vis a vie rats.

Though given the similarity of politicians, such as Brainworms, and rats I can see why it might make them in particular, nervous.

But seriously, the mechanism by which it does that in rats is not present in humans.

 

[Birdjaguar]

[

I don't see a mod badge under your name

Moderator Action: Nor is there one under yours.

Moderator Action: Time to chill folks!

 

[Kilroy Was Here]

Ok, smear your kill face everywhere.

You've used the word "kill" multiple times in this thread. You seem to be using it in place of a different word, because you haven't used it in any recognizable contexts. Could you elaborate further?