Don’t forget, Ms. Maron: you voted for it. There is not a chance in hell that the previous administration would have ever stooped to anything as fascist, totalitarian, and profoundly un-American
Don’t forget, Ms. Maron: you voted for it. There is not a chance in hell that the previous administration would have ever stooped to anything as fascist, totalitarian, and profoundly un-American
The Democrats gave up being "liberal" 6 years ago. The trend has been going on for over a decade but they are now "progressives" and have nothing to do with be "liberal".
I wouldn't say it wasn't pervasive though until about 6 years ago. It's like most Republicans don't believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old but a few extremely evangelicals do and the number is not a growing trend.
In the late 90's and early 00's most Democrats embraced open classical liberal ideals just like most Republicans did. Both believed in free markets though there were some minor differences in how much government regulation was needed. The single biggest divide was abortion. Now, the two parties are talking a different language on almost every issue.
I think the Internet, like the pamphlet wars of the 1600's, created a massive outflow of ideas but there was no real check on the quality of the ideas being presented. The "woke left" took this and ran with it.
I think the "like" button added to social media around 2012 lit a fire on things.
On the CONTRARY. These are NOT the effects of liberalism. I've voted Dem since McGovern in '72. Do You not understand that liberalism has fallen from Dem platform. Not it's wokeism. No shame to LIBERALS. No more than T.Rumpites.
Biden has no liberal values. His values were are are always what’s in it for him. He’s never been a moderate, he’s always been super partisan. And whichever way the wind blows, Joey eggplant will certainly be there.
You could CERTAINLY be right about this. But if You think T.Rump was in the job for any purpose other than the benefit of T.Rump, You can't read between the lines very well. T.Rump ALWAYS out fer T.Rump. #1 and ONLY priority.
I couldn't care less what he was in it for "the benefit" of as long as he does a decent job. What is any politician in it for really? Most are in it to enrich themselves and/or family and/or the power that goes with it. Not to make the world a better place. No one has the moral high ground, especially not the grifty Bidens or any of the Democrats. Trump actually lost money being president. He dropped off the Forbes list.
I'm a dreamer sometimes. I think it's time to FIND some people who WEREN"T in it for themselves. People (I know, i know...) with moral values and, yes, character. Nothing to do with personality so much as who they ARE.
See, here's where partisanship just DESTROYS the mood. First of all, if You think the CHARACTER of T.Rump wasn't fascist, or totalitarian, then You didn't know him very well.
Me? I admit I voted for Biden, and have said repeatedly that I wouldn't do it again. Because the Dems have been BETRAYED by their leaders by the leaders buy-in to the media (social and mainstream) consensus.
Telling people they're stupid LOWERS the conversation, and works AGAINST a common understanding here, right?
President Trump did NOTHING totalitarian. He fought hard for individual rights. His foreign policy was entirely focused on opposing the worst offenders: Russia, Iran and Communist China, as well as smaller offenders from North Korea to Venezuela.
He strongly supported countries that value human rights and freedom. The Abraham Accords are a wonderful example of this. Five Muslim-majority countries recognized Israel, the one country in the Middle East where women have full rights, LGBTQ people can live, and all religions are welcome.
Trump was the first President to support LGBTQ rights, and he already did so years before he was elected. He supported women's rights through his words and actions, unlike the disastrous Obama administration which acted against women's rights (the Iran 'deal' was the worst action against women's rights in decades, perhaps ever, but was just one of many such actions).
How are these actions totalitarian? They are all the exact opposite.
I have looked at the evidence...the election was rigged. And Jan 6 was a peaceful protest until the FBI infiltrators instigated the crowd...you are one of their "useful idiots". Congratulations.
Sorry. You looked at the evidence that supported Your views. I looked at the evidence of the REPUBLICAN DOJ. The largely REPUB courts. The REPUBLICAN Supreme Court.
Funny how all them came to a different conclusion than You. AMAZING coincidence, woudln't YOu say?
I'm about outta here, as I "said." But, no, T.Rump didn't put people into the positions they held because they were part of the swamp. He HANDPICKED his people, to be put into the positions HE wanted.
And they STOOD up to him on Jan. 3rd. Or did You hear about that?
I don't think you have the slightest notion of what "fascist" or "totalitarian" mean. You heard NBC/CNN/ABC use the words over an over again and simply believed them to be true. You use slurs like: "T.Rumpites" thinking you are being "cute". You claim, without evidence Trump was fascist WITHOUT evidence.
Here is an example of fascism: "[The White House is] working with Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to remove problematic information." An example of that "problematic information"? Postings to the CDC website the COVID vaccine has resulted in 2X more deaths than the previous 30 years of all vaccines administered combined.
But most people who use "fascist" as an epithet have no idea what it means. For them it's just a meaningless pejorative to hurl at anyone opposing the latest utopia du jour whatever calls itself the Left is pushing at the moment. The fact that the current iteration of the Left has a programme that looks suspiciously like Mussolini's union of state and corporate power doesn't matter to them in the least.
Well, when *I* use the term fascist, I mean an executive branch that can issue a policy, and then say that if the ones getting the idea foisted on them DON'T go along with it, then Fed dollars will dry up.
We've BEEN living in a fascist state, for DECADES, by my lights.
But that is NOT the definition of a fascist in the remotest use of the word. If you make up definitions that only YOU know what they mean, you can't communicate with people.
It might be policies you don't like but that is not fascist.
But this is, again, what Marcuse always recommended: "Hearto the brute reality requires a redefinition of terms."
Oh! I already knew all that about the media (social and mainstream). No news to me. Don't trust YOUR sources much, but I didn't need such as them to tell me what to think. You?
In early February, political reporter and Nancy Pelosi biographer Molly Ball published a Time magazine article detailing how, as she put it, “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” had rigged the election to secure a Biden victory.
Didn't You "hear?" I bought a TV a year ago and it's still in the box. I WEIGH what I read, case by case. You? If You believe people are dying by enormous MASSES of people? Don't quote me YOUR sources.
I don't think you can understand English well. I never once said people are "dying by enormous MASSES of people" from the COVID vaccines simply it has killed 2X more people in the than all other vaccines int he previous 30 years.
Source is CDC which places the fatality rate of the COVID vaccine at 20 deaths per million doses. Do the math: That is lots of deaths and it is much higher than the death rate by COVID for kids 5-18 years of age.
My math is terrible. How many is that in total. And is it anywhere NEAR what? 700K dead so far? Me? No, I DON'T know. (And only mildly interested.) You see, hard to come up with any HARD NUMBERS of lives SAVED. Does that mean there aren't very many?
I'll let you practice math. I'll let you practice research. You might learn something useful. You want to save lives during this COVID pandemic, persuade Americans to collectively loose 6 billion pounds of excess weight. That would have been as effective as the vaccine.
We are talking about 5,000-7,000 of actually healthy (as in no diabetes, fit, non obese people) people that have died of the covid vaccine. I don't call this "minuscule".
Estimates put an additional 1,000 - 3,000 could die if K-12 age kids are vaccinated universally. If we look at the death rate from COVID in this age group, of the 360 kids which have died in the age group in the US, just over 90% were morbidly obese. Of the 36 that weren't, 2/3 were type 1 diabetics. This leaves us between 11-15 actually healthy kids that have died in the US from COVID. But it sounds like you want to condemn 1000's of kids to death because the number of deaths would be "minuscule".
Given 40% of people hospitalized patients with COVID are fully vaccinated, this is a pandemic of the obese.
I am pro vaccine (even with its issues) for people over mid 20's. It does more good than harm but it takes a sociopath to force a cure on a group of people that is WORSE than the disease.
I had read that article and it is well researched and presented.
Two key takeaways were:
1)
"The fact that the vast majority of children have multiple greater threats to their health and well-being than COVID-19, and that those threats to health worsened as we tried to shelter children from any risk of COVID, should have been quickly integrated into our public health plans."
We closed down gyms (increasing obesity and lowering overall health), encouraged sheltering in place (kept people inside lowering Vit-D), kept fast food open (nuff said), kept people watching Netflix instead of actually going outside.
We know now obesity increase risk of death by COVID but 3X to 4x in adults and 5X-6X in kids. This is on the same level of risk abatement as the vaccine.
It is sad increases in suicides of K-12 kids in California in the first half of 2021, when compared to the same period in 2019, is greater than all the kids that have died from COVID in the entire US.
2)
1. One size fits none: Don't frame risk in terms of a generic person.
The risk to kids (and people under 24) is amazingly small when it comes to COVID. Not 0 but really close. The vaccine is actually higher in these age groups.
The fatality risk of COVID to people my age is 10,000-40,000 per million. (The vaccine is 20 per million dose). Getting the vaccine is a no-brainer.
The risk to people my mom's age is upwards to 100,000 per million. (The vaccine is still around 20 per million.)
COVID is not a death sentence and is highly survivable for most. The vaccines are relatively safe but they are the most deadly vaccines we have issued in over 30 years. But most vaccines are exceedingly safe so being "deadly" compared to exceedingly safe is still relatively safe.
Almost everyone over 24 is better off with the vaccine.
Almost everyone under 20 is better off getting COVID.
We know the outliers in each group and should target vaccines/no vaccines accordingly.
LOOK, man! Do I hafta go over it all again? Have You not read the evidence I've provided in the past? I'm not denigrating T.Rumpites. I'm denigrating a man that has NO CHARACTER. (Over and over and over again...)
Trump has a good character. He had to make strong statements against the people who were lying to the public because most of the media were run by Democrats. The current estimate is that the NY Times and Washington Post each published more than 5000 false articles about Russia alone.
No character we can agree on. Calling him "fascist" when it is his opponents who are imitating Mussolini's programme is a dim way of denigrating him for having no character. (Hint: Substack is one of the better read reaches of the internet where people are inclined to use "fascist" to describe politicians, policies and programmes that are actually analogous to what the self-proclaimed Fascists of the 1920's through 40's advocated and did. Lay off using it as a pejorative for anyone to your right you vehemently disagree with.)
"Any thinking person can only judge an elected official by policies and results."
Stop. That is not true at all and you should know better.
For one thing, a person's character does matter, absolutely. To say it shouldn't be part of the equation is to deny your own humanity.
For another, "results" is not the end-all and be-all of political effectiveness. The Ends does NOT justify the means. It matters HOW you get results, just as much as the results themselves. To say the 'how' doesn't matter is to disregard the complete morality of a given action or policy.
Do you prefer the "polite lie" or the "brutal truth". All to often, people take the "polite lie" in politics as being a proxy for "character".
At the end of the day, a politician is judged by what they SAY they will do and what the actually ACCOMPLISH (or at least expend the political capital to attempt to accomplish.
He ran on trying to secure the southern border from mass illegal immigration. Given the mainstream press can't separate legal VS illegal immigration, he spent lots of political capital doing this (and I would say is doing a much better job than the current regime).
He ran on moving The US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. You can agree or disagree on this but he fulfilled that promise.
He ran on working on getting better trade deals with China. You can argue if he did but he did get forced technology transfers stopped.
He ran on getting a rework of NAFTA. You can argue if the deal was better or worse but he is the first president since its inception to get any significant changes on it.
He ran on decreasing US foreign military involvement. Compare his lists of new wars/military actions VS Clinton, Bush, Bush or Obama.
He ran on lowering the corporate tax rate. You can argue if repatriating $100's of billions of off shore held dollars was good/bad, but he followed through.
He promised to appoint pro life judges. You can agree/disagree on the abortion argument but he followed through. NOTE: This is a far more complex topic than most progressives give it and much more sensitive than most conservatives give it.
Trump has faults. He does not use data and acts impulsivly. He is self centered, bombastic and grandiose but most of his final policies were not that bad.
--------------
Compare this with Obama:
Within the first 100 days, I will close Gitmo.
I was at an Obama Campaign rally in Chicago in 2007. The crowd went wild. It was a BIG issue to the crowd. He did nothing on that promise.
Pretty much all of those are debatable on whether they are good or bad. I would easily argue a net worse, but I'd imagine you wouldn't.
One thing I should say; simply following through with something does not automatically make it commendable. A serial killer has great follow-through, that doesn't make him admirable. It's the thing you are following-through on that matters. And I didn't see much, including what you post here, as remotely admirable or honorable.
Trump is like a mob boss who keeps the streets clean and safe. Sure that's lovely and all, but the methods don't make it right.
Did you just straw man a serial killer??? Seriously?
You hate Trump because the media told you to. And by extension, everything he did. You think getting rid of forced technology transfers was a bad idea. Right.
I have no idea when the Democrats decided open borders was a good thing. That is one of the many whacky-a-doodle concepts that lost me.
No, I was making a point about how a results-weighted stance on character is immoral.
I don't hate Trump. I'm embarrassed by him, and ashamed to be a fellow human being by him. I got that way not by any media outlet, but by simply listening to him speak. That's it. He's a complete a-hole, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that. I prefer the urban dictionary definition on this one btw.
I agree the forced tech transfers was good. That's one.
Open borders is not something any side has done. It's always been a question of how tight, not open or closed. Immigration (and emigration) is the natural state of things for all of humanity, I don't know why some people seem to think we should live in a static fortress.
By the way, I'm not a Democrat. In all of the Prez elections I've voted in, I went for 1 Republican, 2 Democrats, and 2 Independents. I don't care about parties, I care about the person and what they stand for.
"I'm embarrassed by him, and ashamed to be a fellow human being by him. I got that way not by any media outlet, but by simply listening to him speak. That's it. He's a complete a-hole, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that. I prefer the urban dictionary definition on this one btw."
That is 100% what I would describe as "hate".
And you also think greater military involvement is the way to go in foreign affairs? I am all in not being the police of the world and consider it "admirable" to go against the political grain on that as well.
I don't know how people are so compelled by hatred to not look at policies.
No time. But he saw China for what they were. But, in the end, they just blew him off when it came to the COVID. They KNEW, back in Dec. what the pandemic was about. They didn't say anything because they didn't wanna lose face in the international community. And, with the WHOs help, they've pretty much gotten away with it.
That was one thing, tho. THere was a new technology for making the BEST computer chips, and T.Rump got them to agree not to sell to China. That was another small, but important thing. Just off the top-a my head. Gotta get to work now.
He saw them for what they were by coddling up to them and pretending to be all chummy chummy with XinPing? China was throwing millions of Uyghurs into camps and dismantling democracy in Hong Kong and all Trump seemed to want to do was ingratiate himself to them. Wth were you watching?
I was watching the trade wars. I thought they were all wrong when they went on. But that was back then. T.Rump didn't get the whole ball, but he got a piece-a it. The human-rights troubles. And Hong Kong. There ISN"T anybody that has the strength to stand up to it. LEAST of all U.S. And then, after Afghanistan? Even more nup.
See, it is my OPINION that the Conservative position, as opposed to the FAR RIGHT, is that a man's CHARACTER, as in his being FAIR, SENSIBLE, OPEN to criticism are VALUEABLE TRAITS (recall now, italics right?), among others.
Every time he opened his mouth to speak you can see and hear his character. That is plainly evident, you don't need to be in a room alone with someone.
Or are you one of those people who think leaders should not be authentic, but rather infinitely duplicitous and clever because the office somehow requires that of a person?
Probably you are referring to his 2020 State of the Union speech? Considered one of the best ever given by a President. He made wonderful comments about fine people whom he introduced (remember the 100-year old Tuskegee Airman?). He made sensible statements about COVID when the Democrats were attacking him for responding to it. He really showed his fine character in the speech.
Of course Nancy Pelosi showed her character by tearing up the copy of the speech intended for the members of the House.
I won't argue that what You say isn't ONE way to look at politics. The FACT is that if people elected others based on their CHARACTER, then I would say the last 15 years or so wouldn'a ended up like they have.
Don’t forget, Ms. Maron: you voted for it. There is not a chance in hell that the previous administration would have ever stooped to anything as fascist, totalitarian, and profoundly un-American
Yep
She calls herself a "lifelong liberal" then bemoans the effects of liberalism.
The Democrats gave up being "liberal" 6 years ago. The trend has been going on for over a decade but they are now "progressives" and have nothing to do with be "liberal".
Only six? I'd have dated it to sometime during one of the Bush the Younger administrations. They were out of power then, so it was less noticeable.
I wouldn't say it wasn't pervasive though until about 6 years ago. It's like most Republicans don't believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old but a few extremely evangelicals do and the number is not a growing trend.
In the late 90's and early 00's most Democrats embraced open classical liberal ideals just like most Republicans did. Both believed in free markets though there were some minor differences in how much government regulation was needed. The single biggest divide was abortion. Now, the two parties are talking a different language on almost every issue.
I think the Internet, like the pamphlet wars of the 1600's, created a massive outflow of ideas but there was no real check on the quality of the ideas being presented. The "woke left" took this and ran with it.
I think the "like" button added to social media around 2012 lit a fire on things.
On the CONTRARY. These are NOT the effects of liberalism. I've voted Dem since McGovern in '72. Do You not understand that liberalism has fallen from Dem platform. Not it's wokeism. No shame to LIBERALS. No more than T.Rumpites.
Biden has no liberal values. His values were are are always what’s in it for him. He’s never been a moderate, he’s always been super partisan. And whichever way the wind blows, Joey eggplant will certainly be there.
Corrupt hack, and a buffoon to boot
You could CERTAINLY be right about this. But if You think T.Rump was in the job for any purpose other than the benefit of T.Rump, You can't read between the lines very well. T.Rump ALWAYS out fer T.Rump. #1 and ONLY priority.
(No character.)
Gave all his paychecks to charity therefore you are full of shit
C'mon man! You can do better than THAT, right? Or mebbe You clean FORGOT the arsewad was a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE PRETENDING to be a man of the people.
No, the little I give away hurts me a lot more than the brush of the breeze made a dent in T.Rump's wallet.
I couldn't care less what he was in it for "the benefit" of as long as he does a decent job. What is any politician in it for really? Most are in it to enrich themselves and/or family and/or the power that goes with it. Not to make the world a better place. No one has the moral high ground, especially not the grifty Bidens or any of the Democrats. Trump actually lost money being president. He dropped off the Forbes list.
Well, I see what You're "saying," M. Kate.
I'm a dreamer sometimes. I think it's time to FIND some people who WEREN"T in it for themselves. People (I know, i know...) with moral values and, yes, character. Nothing to do with personality so much as who they ARE.
See, here's where partisanship just DESTROYS the mood. First of all, if You think the CHARACTER of T.Rump wasn't fascist, or totalitarian, then You didn't know him very well.
Me? I admit I voted for Biden, and have said repeatedly that I wouldn't do it again. Because the Dems have been BETRAYED by their leaders by the leaders buy-in to the media (social and mainstream) consensus.
Telling people they're stupid LOWERS the conversation, and works AGAINST a common understanding here, right?
President Trump did NOTHING totalitarian. He fought hard for individual rights. His foreign policy was entirely focused on opposing the worst offenders: Russia, Iran and Communist China, as well as smaller offenders from North Korea to Venezuela.
He strongly supported countries that value human rights and freedom. The Abraham Accords are a wonderful example of this. Five Muslim-majority countries recognized Israel, the one country in the Middle East where women have full rights, LGBTQ people can live, and all religions are welcome.
Trump was the first President to support LGBTQ rights, and he already did so years before he was elected. He supported women's rights through his words and actions, unlike the disastrous Obama administration which acted against women's rights (the Iran 'deal' was the worst action against women's rights in decades, perhaps ever, but was just one of many such actions).
How are these actions totalitarian? They are all the exact opposite.
Would like some solid examples of “fascist” or totalitarian actions by Trump. He followed the Constitution. Always.
Have You, perchance, looked at the EVIDENCE for the insanity about T.Rump winning?
You don't get much FURTHER from the Constitution than what happened Jan. 3rd. Not to mention, Jan 6th.
I have looked at the evidence...the election was rigged. And Jan 6 was a peaceful protest until the FBI infiltrators instigated the crowd...you are one of their "useful idiots". Congratulations.
Sorry. You looked at the evidence that supported Your views. I looked at the evidence of the REPUBLICAN DOJ. The largely REPUB courts. The REPUBLICAN Supreme Court.
Funny how all them came to a different conclusion than You. AMAZING coincidence, woudln't YOu say?
Yes I have and Mollie Hemingway has a book coming out compiling ALL the evidence of illegal and fraudulent activity in the last election.
And I'm sure this Mollie Hemingway had better resources to investigate than THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, right??!?
Sorry, but no...
DOJ is corrupt. Sorry you still trust your obviously corrupt govt
C'mon. I trusted the REPUBLICAN DOJ. Yah. They had no axe to grind against T.Rump, right?
Seems just about the entire swamp had an axe to grind on Trump
I'm about outta here, as I "said." But, no, T.Rump didn't put people into the positions they held because they were part of the swamp. He HANDPICKED his people, to be put into the positions HE wanted.
And they STOOD up to him on Jan. 3rd. Or did You hear about that?
Easily better than the DoJ...facts don't lie, but the FBI does easily and often.
Primary example is the Nassar/Olympics gymnastic pedophile doctor! Despicable!
I didn’t tell Ms. Maron she was stupid. I said that, with her ballot, she supported the administration she is now decrying.
And You supported the administration that tried to overthrow the election. Do I hold a grudge? Nup.
You support an Admin that stole an election. Sorry
That's what I thought. You're just the only one who came right out and said it, so I admire that. You're contradicting A.G. Bill Barr, tho. So, no...
That fat deep stater not only didn’t investigate he shut down any investigation of it. He sucks.
Sorry, the FACTS contradict You. Yah, yah, yah... He was a RINO all that time. Nup.
I’m not here complaining about it in a column
I don't think you have the slightest notion of what "fascist" or "totalitarian" mean. You heard NBC/CNN/ABC use the words over an over again and simply believed them to be true. You use slurs like: "T.Rumpites" thinking you are being "cute". You claim, without evidence Trump was fascist WITHOUT evidence.
Here is an example of fascism: "[The White House is] working with Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to remove problematic information." An example of that "problematic information"? Postings to the CDC website the COVID vaccine has resulted in 2X more deaths than the previous 30 years of all vaccines administered combined.
Ignore the TDS troll. His ilk is why we are all in this current mess.
How many of You against poor li'l ole me!
But most people who use "fascist" as an epithet have no idea what it means. For them it's just a meaningless pejorative to hurl at anyone opposing the latest utopia du jour whatever calls itself the Left is pushing at the moment. The fact that the current iteration of the Left has a programme that looks suspiciously like Mussolini's union of state and corporate power doesn't matter to them in the least.
Well, when *I* use the term fascist, I mean an executive branch that can issue a policy, and then say that if the ones getting the idea foisted on them DON'T go along with it, then Fed dollars will dry up.
We've BEEN living in a fascist state, for DECADES, by my lights.
But that is NOT the definition of a fascist in the remotest use of the word. If you make up definitions that only YOU know what they mean, you can't communicate with people.
It might be policies you don't like but that is not fascist.
But this is, again, what Marcuse always recommended: "Hearto the brute reality requires a redefinition of terms."
Clown world.
Oh! I already knew all that about the media (social and mainstream). No news to me. Don't trust YOUR sources much, but I didn't need such as them to tell me what to think. You?
Time and Molly Ball are leftists...
In early February, political reporter and Nancy Pelosi biographer Molly Ball published a Time magazine article detailing how, as she put it, “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” had rigged the election to secure a Biden victory.
Didn't You "hear?" I bought a TV a year ago and it's still in the box. I WEIGH what I read, case by case. You? If You believe people are dying by enormous MASSES of people? Don't quote me YOUR sources.
I don't think you can understand English well. I never once said people are "dying by enormous MASSES of people" from the COVID vaccines simply it has killed 2X more people in the than all other vaccines int he previous 30 years.
Source is CDC which places the fatality rate of the COVID vaccine at 20 deaths per million doses. Do the math: That is lots of deaths and it is much higher than the death rate by COVID for kids 5-18 years of age.
I my GOODNESS! I stand CORRECTED (italics).
My math is terrible. How many is that in total. And is it anywhere NEAR what? 700K dead so far? Me? No, I DON'T know. (And only mildly interested.) You see, hard to come up with any HARD NUMBERS of lives SAVED. Does that mean there aren't very many?
I'll let you practice math. I'll let you practice research. You might learn something useful. You want to save lives during this COVID pandemic, persuade Americans to collectively loose 6 billion pounds of excess weight. That would have been as effective as the vaccine.
Oh wait... That is fat shaming. Can't do that.
Yah, that's what I thought. MINISCULE numbers who died from the vaccine.
Fat shaming? I wish that'd come back. As far as being as effective as the vaccine. Now You're pulling my thumb.
We are talking about 5,000-7,000 of actually healthy (as in no diabetes, fit, non obese people) people that have died of the covid vaccine. I don't call this "minuscule".
Estimates put an additional 1,000 - 3,000 could die if K-12 age kids are vaccinated universally. If we look at the death rate from COVID in this age group, of the 360 kids which have died in the age group in the US, just over 90% were morbidly obese. Of the 36 that weren't, 2/3 were type 1 diabetics. This leaves us between 11-15 actually healthy kids that have died in the US from COVID. But it sounds like you want to condemn 1000's of kids to death because the number of deaths would be "minuscule".
Given 40% of people hospitalized patients with COVID are fully vaccinated, this is a pandemic of the obese.
I am pro vaccine (even with its issues) for people over mid 20's. It does more good than harm but it takes a sociopath to force a cure on a group of people that is WORSE than the disease.
Keep towing the party line and keep not thinking.
I thought this was interesting, tho I just skimmed in between getting shellacked
https://www.persuasion.community/p/how-to-fix-our-broken-relationship
I had read that article and it is well researched and presented.
Two key takeaways were:
1)
"The fact that the vast majority of children have multiple greater threats to their health and well-being than COVID-19, and that those threats to health worsened as we tried to shelter children from any risk of COVID, should have been quickly integrated into our public health plans."
We closed down gyms (increasing obesity and lowering overall health), encouraged sheltering in place (kept people inside lowering Vit-D), kept fast food open (nuff said), kept people watching Netflix instead of actually going outside.
We know now obesity increase risk of death by COVID but 3X to 4x in adults and 5X-6X in kids. This is on the same level of risk abatement as the vaccine.
It is sad increases in suicides of K-12 kids in California in the first half of 2021, when compared to the same period in 2019, is greater than all the kids that have died from COVID in the entire US.
2)
1. One size fits none: Don't frame risk in terms of a generic person.
The risk to kids (and people under 24) is amazingly small when it comes to COVID. Not 0 but really close. The vaccine is actually higher in these age groups.
The fatality risk of COVID to people my age is 10,000-40,000 per million. (The vaccine is 20 per million dose). Getting the vaccine is a no-brainer.
The risk to people my mom's age is upwards to 100,000 per million. (The vaccine is still around 20 per million.)
COVID is not a death sentence and is highly survivable for most. The vaccines are relatively safe but they are the most deadly vaccines we have issued in over 30 years. But most vaccines are exceedingly safe so being "deadly" compared to exceedingly safe is still relatively safe.
Almost everyone over 24 is better off with the vaccine.
Almost everyone under 20 is better off getting COVID.
We know the outliers in each group and should target vaccines/no vaccines accordingly.
How was Trump fascist or totalitarian ? The left loves to spew such epithets in the absence of evidence just because it feels good to denigrate.
LOOK, man! Do I hafta go over it all again? Have You not read the evidence I've provided in the past? I'm not denigrating T.Rumpites. I'm denigrating a man that has NO CHARACTER. (Over and over and over again...)
Trump has a good character. He had to make strong statements against the people who were lying to the public because most of the media were run by Democrats. The current estimate is that the NY Times and Washington Post each published more than 5000 false articles about Russia alone.
No character we can agree on. Calling him "fascist" when it is his opponents who are imitating Mussolini's programme is a dim way of denigrating him for having no character. (Hint: Substack is one of the better read reaches of the internet where people are inclined to use "fascist" to describe politicians, policies and programmes that are actually analogous to what the self-proclaimed Fascists of the 1920's through 40's advocated and did. Lay off using it as a pejorative for anyone to your right you vehemently disagree with.)
So ya got nuthin. Yep.
If You don't want to see me write anything, Unwoke, why do You keep REPLYING? Funny that.
I'll take a pass here.
"Any thinking person can only judge an elected official by policies and results."
Stop. That is not true at all and you should know better.
For one thing, a person's character does matter, absolutely. To say it shouldn't be part of the equation is to deny your own humanity.
For another, "results" is not the end-all and be-all of political effectiveness. The Ends does NOT justify the means. It matters HOW you get results, just as much as the results themselves. To say the 'how' doesn't matter is to disregard the complete morality of a given action or policy.
Do you prefer the "polite lie" or the "brutal truth". All to often, people take the "polite lie" in politics as being a proxy for "character".
At the end of the day, a politician is judged by what they SAY they will do and what the actually ACCOMPLISH (or at least expend the political capital to attempt to accomplish.
Putting character aside for the moment, what the hell did Trump accomplish?
He ran on trying to secure the southern border from mass illegal immigration. Given the mainstream press can't separate legal VS illegal immigration, he spent lots of political capital doing this (and I would say is doing a much better job than the current regime).
He ran on moving The US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. You can agree or disagree on this but he fulfilled that promise.
He ran on working on getting better trade deals with China. You can argue if he did but he did get forced technology transfers stopped.
He ran on getting a rework of NAFTA. You can argue if the deal was better or worse but he is the first president since its inception to get any significant changes on it.
He ran on decreasing US foreign military involvement. Compare his lists of new wars/military actions VS Clinton, Bush, Bush or Obama.
He ran on lowering the corporate tax rate. You can argue if repatriating $100's of billions of off shore held dollars was good/bad, but he followed through.
He promised to appoint pro life judges. You can agree/disagree on the abortion argument but he followed through. NOTE: This is a far more complex topic than most progressives give it and much more sensitive than most conservatives give it.
Trump has faults. He does not use data and acts impulsivly. He is self centered, bombastic and grandiose but most of his final policies were not that bad.
--------------
Compare this with Obama:
Within the first 100 days, I will close Gitmo.
I was at an Obama Campaign rally in Chicago in 2007. The crowd went wild. It was a BIG issue to the crowd. He did nothing on that promise.
Pretty much all of those are debatable on whether they are good or bad. I would easily argue a net worse, but I'd imagine you wouldn't.
One thing I should say; simply following through with something does not automatically make it commendable. A serial killer has great follow-through, that doesn't make him admirable. It's the thing you are following-through on that matters. And I didn't see much, including what you post here, as remotely admirable or honorable.
Trump is like a mob boss who keeps the streets clean and safe. Sure that's lovely and all, but the methods don't make it right.
Did you just straw man a serial killer??? Seriously?
You hate Trump because the media told you to. And by extension, everything he did. You think getting rid of forced technology transfers was a bad idea. Right.
I have no idea when the Democrats decided open borders was a good thing. That is one of the many whacky-a-doodle concepts that lost me.
No, I was making a point about how a results-weighted stance on character is immoral.
I don't hate Trump. I'm embarrassed by him, and ashamed to be a fellow human being by him. I got that way not by any media outlet, but by simply listening to him speak. That's it. He's a complete a-hole, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that. I prefer the urban dictionary definition on this one btw.
I agree the forced tech transfers was good. That's one.
Open borders is not something any side has done. It's always been a question of how tight, not open or closed. Immigration (and emigration) is the natural state of things for all of humanity, I don't know why some people seem to think we should live in a static fortress.
By the way, I'm not a Democrat. In all of the Prez elections I've voted in, I went for 1 Republican, 2 Democrats, and 2 Independents. I don't care about parties, I care about the person and what they stand for.
You straw manned a serial killer.
"I'm embarrassed by him, and ashamed to be a fellow human being by him. I got that way not by any media outlet, but by simply listening to him speak. That's it. He's a complete a-hole, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that. I prefer the urban dictionary definition on this one btw."
That is 100% what I would describe as "hate".
And you also think greater military involvement is the way to go in foreign affairs? I am all in not being the police of the world and consider it "admirable" to go against the political grain on that as well.
I don't know how people are so compelled by hatred to not look at policies.
No time. But he saw China for what they were. But, in the end, they just blew him off when it came to the COVID. They KNEW, back in Dec. what the pandemic was about. They didn't say anything because they didn't wanna lose face in the international community. And, with the WHOs help, they've pretty much gotten away with it.
That was one thing, tho. THere was a new technology for making the BEST computer chips, and T.Rump got them to agree not to sell to China. That was another small, but important thing. Just off the top-a my head. Gotta get to work now.
He saw them for what they were by coddling up to them and pretending to be all chummy chummy with XinPing? China was throwing millions of Uyghurs into camps and dismantling democracy in Hong Kong and all Trump seemed to want to do was ingratiate himself to them. Wth were you watching?
I was watching the trade wars. I thought they were all wrong when they went on. But that was back then. T.Rump didn't get the whole ball, but he got a piece-a it. The human-rights troubles. And Hong Kong. There ISN"T anybody that has the strength to stand up to it. LEAST of all U.S. And then, after Afghanistan? Even more nup.
See, it is my OPINION that the Conservative position, as opposed to the FAR RIGHT, is that a man's CHARACTER, as in his being FAIR, SENSIBLE, OPEN to criticism are VALUEABLE TRAITS (recall now, italics right?), among others.
Every time he opened his mouth to speak you can see and hear his character. That is plainly evident, you don't need to be in a room alone with someone.
Or are you one of those people who think leaders should not be authentic, but rather infinitely duplicitous and clever because the office somehow requires that of a person?
Probably you are referring to his 2020 State of the Union speech? Considered one of the best ever given by a President. He made wonderful comments about fine people whom he introduced (remember the 100-year old Tuskegee Airman?). He made sensible statements about COVID when the Democrats were attacking him for responding to it. He really showed his fine character in the speech.
Of course Nancy Pelosi showed her character by tearing up the copy of the speech intended for the members of the House.
What policies did you agree with him on??
See, I don't disagree ENTIRELY with You on this. Yah, it's stagecraft.
But it's just plain FACTUALLY INCORRECT to say that the only data that can be looked at is quantifiable numbers that often have their OWN biases.
Can't You HEAR when somebody is lying to You? Not at ALL?
SURE You can! You do it all the time, ,right? No numbers involved, You just KNOW.
I won't argue that what You say isn't ONE way to look at politics. The FACT is that if people elected others based on their CHARACTER, then I would say the last 15 years or so wouldn'a ended up like they have.