Should we get vaccinated against COVID-19?

[One Bad Pig]

Quite, this is really the point. We expect the republicans to be awful, and their supporters to defend them and minimise their awfulness regardless. Democrats are meant to be better. And they are, clearly. But that's such a low bar it doesn't really take any effort, I'd expect them to be order of magnitude better, which unfortunately isn't the case.

I'd be interested in seeing an actual defense of this idea that Democrats are clearly better at telling the truth, with examples.

[rogue06]

I'd be interested in seeing an actual defense of this idea that Democrats are clearly better at telling the truth, with examples.

OMB. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Starlight]

I'd be interested in seeing an actual defense of this idea that Democrats are clearly better at telling the truth, with examples.

A simple way I could point to some evidence is to point to politifact.com assessment of different statements by politicans and show that among comparable leading figures in the party, truthfulness skews hugely to the Democrats. But you will then reject that evidence on the grounds that 'politifact is a liberal source' or somesuch.

I could point to WaPo's database of Trump's 30,573 false or misleading claims, but then you'll say 'WaPo's a liberal source', or Rogue will be along to do his usual schtick of pointing to one arguably true statement by Trump then falsely claiming that statement is in WaPo's database of Trump's lies and then claiming WaPo's database absolutely can't be trusted at all in any way because it allegedly contains a single error.

I could point to fact-checking done after debates where the media eagerly checks to find errors in any controversial statements that the politicians made in the debates, and show the Republicans say more falsehoods than Democrats, but then you will say 'CNN, MSNBC, etc are liberal sources and biased and cannot be trusted'.

I could spend hours myself fact checking speeches of comparable length by Democratic and Republican politicians and document an order of magnitude more false statements in the Republican ones than Democratic ones. But then you'll tell me I'm a liberal who can't be trusted to do this fairly.

Experience tells me that there is no amount of evidence I can cite for you that you won't be willing to explain away. This reflects that you're fundamentally not interested in evidence or facts and so you'll just say all reality based sources are 'liberal' and continue to believe your conservative beliefs that make you feel good.

[tabibito]

I could point to fact-checking done after debates where the media eagerly checks to find errors in any controversial statements that the politicians made in the debates...

The potential for bias in that procedure is phenomenal.

[Mountain Man]

... But you will then reject that evidence on the grounds that 'politifact is a liberal source' or somesuch.

... claiming WaPo's database absolutely can't be trusted ...

... you will say 'CNN, MSNBC, etc are liberal sources and biased and cannot be trusted'.

... you'll tell me I'm a liberal who can't be trusted to do this fairly.

Correctly predicting an objection to your argument is not the same as demonstrating that the objection is invalid.

[Mountain Man]

This China flu vaccine push has gone beyond disturbing at this point:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Monday said it is the community’s mission to get more people vaccinated, previewing his administration’s desire to knock on doors, put unvaccinated people in cars, and drive them to “get that vaccine in their arm.”

“I wear a mask because I care about you. I get a vaccine because I care about you,” Cuomo said, framing compliance to various methods of government coercion as an expression of selflessness.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-in-their-arm/

As it is often said, George Orwell's 1984 was intended as a warning and not an instruction manual. Frankly, the harder they push these risky, experimental vaccines, the more I wonder what it is they're not telling us.

[Starlight]

Correctly predicting an objection to your argument is not the same as demonstrating that the objection is invalid.

It's simply a matter of noting that I know well from experience that there will turn out to be no possible methodology acceptable to you guys.

By making it so there can never be any acceptable type of evidence, you shield yourselves from ever having to actually accept the very evidence you pretend to ask me for.

[Mountain Man]

It's simply a matter of noting that I know well from experience that there will turn out to be no possible methodology acceptable to you guys.

By making it so there can never be any acceptable type of evidence, you shield yourselves from ever having to actually accept the very evidence you pretend to ask me for.

I suppose if you were having a debate with a young earth creationist, you would find it compelling if he correctly predicted what response you would have to any source he presented to support his argument? "Here's an essay by Ken Hamm, but I bet you're going to say that Ken Hamm is nothing but a religious hack who wouldn't know real science if his life depended on it because you really don't care about the evidence."

No? You wouldn't find that compelling? Of course you wouldn't. And neither do I.

[rogue06]

A simple way I could point to some evidence is to point to politifact.com ...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Sorry. I never made it past that first part.

Perhaps someone should tell star that some of these "fact checkers" made it clear that they won't be combing through everything Biden says as compared to how they scrutinized Trump. And they certainly won't be listening differences in opinion, painfully obvious hyperbole etc. as "lies" either the very few times they find themselves compelled to fact check him.

[One Bad Pig]

A simple way I could point to some evidence is to point to politifact.com assessment of different statements by politicans and show that among comparable leading figures in the party, truthfulness skews hugely to the Democrats. But you will then reject that evidence on the grounds that 'politifact is a liberal source' or somesuch.

I could point to WaPo's database of Trump's 30,573 false or misleading claims, but then you'll say 'WaPo's a liberal source', or Rogue will be along to do his usual schtick of pointing to one arguably true statement by Trump then falsely claiming that statement is in WaPo's database of Trump's lies and then claiming WaPo's database absolutely can't be trusted at all in any way because it allegedly contains a single error.

I could point to fact-checking done after debates where the media eagerly checks to find errors in any controversial statements that the politicians made in the debates, and show the Republicans say more falsehoods than Democrats, but then you will say 'CNN, MSNBC, etc are liberal sources and biased and cannot be trusted'.

I could spend hours myself fact checking speeches of comparable length by Democratic and Republican politicians and document an order of magnitude more false statements in the Republican ones than Democratic ones. But then you'll tell me I'm a liberal who can't be trusted to do this fairly.

Experience tells me that there is no amount of evidence I can cite for you that you won't be willing to explain away. This reflects that you're fundamentally not interested in evidence or facts and so you'll just say all reality based sources are 'liberal' and continue to believe your conservative beliefs that make you feel good.

There's a reason I asked EvoUK and not you, champ. You are manifestly incapable of accurately characterizing me OR Rogue; why should I trust your characterization of organizations at farther remove?

[rogue06]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Sorry. I never made it past that first part.

Perhaps someone should tell star that some of these "fact checkers" made it clear that they won't be combing through everything Biden says as compared to how they scrutinized Trump. And they certainly won't be listening differences in opinion, painfully obvious hyperbole etc. as "lies" either the very few times they find themselves compelled to fact check him.

I should note that the supposed "fact checkers" at Politifact just declared "false" a video that "Says Joe Biden and Kamala Harris distrusted COVID-19 vaccines."

Once again Politifact demonstrates how they run interference for the left, this time by seeking to explain what old Joe and the cackling hyena actually "meant" rather than looking at what they said.

“[The] video clips appear to show Joe Biden and Kamala Harris raising doubts about COVID-19 vaccines, but they were raising concerns about the rollout by then-President Donald Trump, not the vaccines themselves.”

First, the video doesn't "appear to show" it does show. It quotes them directly.

Second, when you go around suggesting that someone shouldn't trust the vaccine until something happens -- namely, the Democrats getting elected -- then you are sowing distrust in the vaccines themselves. Saying otherwise is a distinction without a difference.

That was precisely what Harris did in the Vice Presidential debate when she exclaimed: "If Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it."

Trump wasn't manufacturing the vaccines. Moreover, with that statement, had she and old Joe lost, she had established a rationalization for not getting vaccinated -- and does anyone serious believe that it would not have been expounded on and pushed after the election?

Pence hit the nail squarely on the head when he immediately chastised Harris for her remarks:

"Stop playing politics with people's lives ... The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if the vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think is unconscionable."

And context does not help at all when it comes to some of the demented duffer's remarks. For example, in a call with Hispanic journalist while he was still hiding in his basement, old Joe declared

People don’t believe that he’s telling the truth, therefore they’re not at all certain they’re going to take the vaccine. And one more thing: If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done

Old Joe was already revving up the exactly the same sort of anti-vaxx rhetoric we hear now. The sort of stuff he now mumbles is "killing people" and needs to be banned.

Then a couple months later he was at it again in a TV interview using more cynical campaign rhetoric to cast aspersions on any vaccine that was developed.

"Look at what’s happened. An enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. Enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say the following protocol will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie. When we finally do, god willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? Are you going to be the first one to say sign me up? They now say it’s OK. I’m not being facetious."

79rgwyuekcc71.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Liberals are starting to really push the narrative that you don't have a right to not be vaccinated.

In this clip from Anthony Fauci on ABC This Week Sunday [Rumble Link], the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, claims that individual rights no longer exist during the era of COVID-19. When you consider the mindset of the far-left, his opinion on communal rights -vs- individual rights is right in line with the collectivist perspective. These people are dangerous.

“The fact is, if you get infected, even if you are without symptoms, you very well may infect another person who may be vulnerable … So in essence, you are encroaching on their individual rights.”

It appears from the visible evidence, the Delta variant of COVID-19 may well be more transmissible; perhaps even more transmissible due to increased shedding from people who are vaccinated carriers of the virus. However, the death rate is lower than the traditional flu.

All of these extreme mitigation efforts appear constructed to protect against something that just doesn’t carry the scale of risk that would match the severity of alarm we are bombarded with. If you turn off the television, disconnect from corporate media and tune-out these alarmist proclamations, life appears to be carrying along just fine.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...vidual-rights/

[Cow Poke]

Liberals are starting to really push the narrative that you don't have a right to not be vaccinated.

In this clip from Anthony Fauci on ABC This Week Sunday [Rumble Link], the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, claims that individual rights no longer exist during the era of COVID-19. When you consider the mindset of the far-left, his opinion on communal rights -vs- individual rights is right in line with the collectivist perspective. These people are dangerous.

“The fact is, if you get infected, even if you are without symptoms, you very well may infect another person who may be vulnerable … So in essence, you are encroaching on their individual rights.”

It appears from the visible evidence, the Delta variant of COVID-19 may well be more transmissible; perhaps even more transmissible due to increased shedding from people who are vaccinated carriers of the virus. However, the death rate is lower than the traditional flu.

All of these extreme mitigation efforts appear constructed to protect against something that just doesn’t carry the scale of risk that would match the severity of alarm we are bombarded with. If you turn off the television, disconnect from corporate media and tune-out these alarmist proclamations, life appears to be carrying along just fine.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...vidual-rights/

Hence my thread on "second class citizens". That's exactly where this is going. It's not hard to imagine them rounding up the unvaccinated and detaining them until they "take the shot".

[rogue06]

Hence my thread on "second class citizens". That's exactly where this is going. It's not hard to imagine them rounding up the unvaccinated and detaining them until they "take the shot".

If anything I see something more along the lines of being quarantined at home. You'll have to order groceries to be delivered.