|
crazy cloud posted:if trump can get a GOP debate audience to applaud "bush did 9/11" my life will be complete
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
How did nothing ever come out of the anti-vaccination debate talk? I'm from a different country, but I feel like that would be all we would talk about if a major party front runner ever said that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Piquai Souban posted:How did nothing ever come out of the anti-vaccination debate talk? I'm from a different country, but I feel like that would be all we would talk about if a major party front runner ever said that. The Average American is not very bright and does not think independently of television. Antivax is a new way for the Illuminati to cull stupid people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
McDowell posted:The Average American is not very bright and does not think independently of television. Antivax is a new way for the Illuminati to cull stupid people. How is "spread them out" an anti vax position?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
McDowell posted:^ gently caress off, "neoautist marxism" was calling patriotism a mix of nationalism and socialism before Trump even announced. Yeah what was that about. Was he just fishing for crazy quotes to put in his overhyped docs, or did Trump previously mention nuking blablastan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Yeah what was that about. Was he just fishing for crazy quotes to put in his overhyped docs, or did Trump previously mention nuking blablastan. Maybe he was just curious if Trump would announce nuking ISIL (he either won't do it or won't make it a campaign plank, who knows)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:How is "spread them out" an anti vax position? Because it lends credence to the idea that vaccines are dangerous in their typical schedule, which is stupid and wrong and can only lead to children getting sick because they haven't had the shots they needed on time. People act like no one's ever researched these things before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:How is "spread them out" an anti vax position? Because it concedes that there's something wrong with vaccinations as they're already being done right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
I heard that the organization that sets up vaccinations is corrupt and has people who profit from a vaccine going on schedule. That could lead to needless bloat of vaccines taken. I don't think there's anything wrong with the medicine but if that's true then it sounds like a good reason not to have so many. But I never really researched the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
I heard that the organization that opposes vaccinations is corrupt and has people who profit from opposition to vaccinations. That could lead to needless death from a host of childhood diseases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:How is "spread them out" an anti vax position? The same way "the MMR vaccine causes autism" is an anti vax position. It's not necessarily saying that vaccinations in general don't work, but it's a demonstrably incorrect suggestion that undermines what the science around vaccination says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:I heard that the organization that sets up vaccinations is corrupt and has people who profit from a vaccine going on schedule. That could lead to needless bloat of vaccines taken. Good thing it's very simple to get a vaccine scheduled and not something incredibly difficult and regulated. Just look at how many new vaccines have been scheduled in the last 20 years!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:I heard that the organization that sets up vaccinations is corrupt and has people who profit from a vaccine going on schedule. That could lead to needless bloat of vaccines taken. There is no such organization. That's not how health care works in America. Whoever you heard this from is uninformed at best, and intentionally misleading the public at worst. quote:I don't think there's anything wrong with the medicine but if that's true then it sounds like a good reason not to have so many. It's not true, there is no reason not to have multiple vaccinations simultaneously, an enormous amount of peer-reviewed research has been done on this issue. quote:But I never really researched the issue. I assure you that you don't need to research it because it's already been done for you. Ask literally any pediatrician on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Same as a lot of abortion arguments, it ignores that the medical profession is completely covered with legal, ethical, and academic guidelines already. Guidelines made by people who have studied medicine and the law and know what they are talking about. edit: I'm not saying the medical profession is perfect, but if it's going to be improved it's going to be by academics, not these guys. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I heard that the organization that opposes vaccinations is corrupt and has people who profit from opposition to vaccinations. That could lead to needless death from a host of childhood diseases. How much blood do you think Andrew Wakefield has on his hands? If I were him I might have killed myself by now, out of pure shame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
This is why I buy all my medicine from Alex Jones. I also avoid juice boxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
The anti vax crowd started off saying that there was reason to believe vaccination is in and of itself a dangerous procedure, that was proven false by an overwhelming body of evidence. They then moved on to saying multiple simultaneous vaccinations are dangerous, that was proven false by an overwhelming body of evidence. Now they are saying that the Immunization schedule itself is dangerous. There isn't actually a lot of evidence to refute that charge specifically, because there's literally zero reason to think it's worth researching. What will happen is that the "concerns" of the public will spur on research, which will show that said concerns are nonsense, and then there will be a hot new charge against vaccination. You literally cannot win with these people, there is no sensible discussion to be had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Bryter posted:The anti vax crowd started off saying that there was reason to believe vaccination is in and of itself a dangerous procedure, that was proven false by an overwhelming body of evidence. They then moved on to saying multiple simultaneous vaccinations are dangerous, that was proven false by an overwhelming body of evidence. Now they are saying that the Immunization schedule itself is dangerous. There isn't actually a lot of evidence to refute that charge specifically, because there's literally zero reason to think it's worth researching. What will happen is that the "concerns" of the public will spur on research, which will show that said concerns are nonsense, and then there will be a hot new charge against vaccination. Actually, there is. The only thing they need to do is to ask their pediatrician.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Actually, there is. The only thing they need to do is to ask their pediatrician. Yeah, and when they ask their paediatrician if the safety of the immunization schedule is well-backed by research, the answer is "no".
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Because the reality is several industries rely on undocumented labor to turn a profit/provide a product at a price people are willing to pay and nobody in either party is going to kick that hornet's nest. This isn't really true. All they'd need to keep profits up is to raise the prices a small amount. Heavens, if they had to pay a living wage fruit might cost 14 cents more a pound and they'd make 500 million less collectively in a profit a year, or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Actually, there is. The only thing they need to do is to ask their pediatrician. That would work if they trusted doctors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
We were never getting anything other than Bush vs. Clinton in 2016. I honestly don't think the Bush campaign is even concerned with the current polls. Sitting in 4th place means he can continue to ramp up his ground game without much scrutiny or attacks to fend off. Trump is a lightning rod protecting Bush's campaign, and a foil to make Bush appear more reasonable and presidential. Hillary would love to have someone like Trump soaking up the media spotlight on the Democrat side. Bush will comfortably sit in the single digits until late Fall, and then get into serious campaign mode in time to place Top 2 in New Hampshire, before taking control of the race as the clear front runner on Super Tuesday. As much as I would love to see Trump win, he is not a serious candidate. Obama was able to win because he invested in building up his own political machine to combat Clinton, is Trump going to do the same? Probably not. I don't think Trump himself believes he is a legitimate candidate with a serious chance of picking up the nomination. He will continue to hold rallies, and give interviews and if it miraculously results in winning the nomination - great, if not Trump will have had his fun, picked up a lot of fans, and go back to picking out the most gaudy finishings for his new buildings. He even said as much in an interview this week. It's going to take something catastrophic to prevent a Bush general election win at this point. Hillary had the easiest path to the presidency - smile, wave, be the most by-the-book secretary of the state the world has ever seen and she could have won by a landslide. She couldn't manage that relatively simple task, so she will deserve to lose to Bush.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:If you are getting attacked for something that originated from "anonymous supporters" of the strongest candidate in the opposing party, why would you not bring it up? It's totally fair to blame Clinton for it because the odds that it was started randomly and not as a calculated move from within the Clinton campaign are probably close to zero. You're wrong on both counts. First, blaming someone for starting a whisper campaign makes no goddamn sense if you were the one yelling it from a megaphone. Second, as has been pointed out, birtherism started the moment people realized a black man named "Barack Hussein Obama" was running for president. If started with Democrats first because they became aware of him first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Kabanaw posted:That would work if they trusted doctors. Also, this is true. People who have vaguely heard concerns about vaccination, bring them up to their doctor and are reassured by hearing the medical consensus aren't "the anti-vax crowd".
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Yeah, and when they ask their paediatrician if the safety of the immunization schedule is well-backed by research, the answer is "no". I thought that this was pretty comprehensive. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I thought that this was pretty comprehensive. That backs up exactly what I just said? quote:Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the quote:Recommendation 6-1: The committee recommends that the Department
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This isn't really true. All they'd need to keep profits up is to raise the prices a small amount. Heavens, if they had to pay a living wage fruit might cost 14 cents more a pound and they'd make 500 million less collectively in a profit a year, or something like that. There would be a pretty drastic change in the price of goods and profitability of companies if you were to get rid of cheap undocumented labor. There is a lot of direct and indirect labor costs that would rise considerably, not to mention the wages of those legal workers who are higher up on the totem pole, and would demand to be paid more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
quote:Jeb Bush argued Tuesday that the United States is "creeping toward multiculturalism" and described it as "the wrong approach." What the hell Jeb!.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:We were never getting anything other than Bush vs. Clinton in 2016. I honestly don't think the Bush campaign is even concerned with the current polls. Sitting in 4th place means he can continue to ramp up his ground game without much scrutiny or attacks to fend off. Trump is a lightning rod protecting Bush's campaign, and a foil to make Bush appear more reasonable and presidential. Hillary would love to have someone like Trump soaking up the media spotlight on the Democrat side. Bush will comfortably sit in the single digits until late Fall, and then get into serious campaign mode in time to place Top 2 in New Hampshire, before taking control of the race as the clear front runner on Super Tuesday. I wouldn't count Bush out yet either, but there's no way his people aren't in panic mode. Romney had the luxury of always being 1st or 2nd. Bush is in 4th, 5th or even 6th in some states. I think that for 90% of Romney's campaign his people thought he had it locked it up, aside from that small stretch where all the other Romney's flopped and Santorum had a strong showing in Iowa and a few other states. As for Trump, we all have plenty of things to say about him, but claiming he's not a serious candidate shouldn't be one of them. He's invested a ton of time, money (including losing several business deals and hiring staff trying to build an off-the-shelf presidential campaign) and energy into his campaign and I think he believes he will win, or at the very least has a very reasonable chance of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
nachos posted:What the hell Jeb!. He doesn't want to be president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
El multiculturalisma no funciona. - Jeb Bush
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Class-based isolated pockets are more damning to the mythical monoculture than race-based pockets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
nachos posted:What the hell Jeb!. Is anyone surprised? Merkel and Cameron have come out as openly opposed to multiculturalism, and even liberal Americans have always seemed to mostly buy in to the melting pot idea...
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
The word you're looking for is 'Race-Nationalism', Jeb! Not 'Multiculturalism'
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:El multiculturalisma no funciona. - Jeb Bush Beat me to it. The guy who speaks fluent Spanish is against multiculturalism? Jesus
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
McDowell posted:The word you're looking for is 'Race-Nationalism', Jeb! Not 'Multiculturalism' HappyHippo posted:Beat me to it. The guy who speaks fluent Spanish is against multiculturalism? Jesus It's so ridiculous that I think many people will just assume Bush used the wrong, which he probably did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
nachos posted:What the hell Jeb!. "This would all go much easier if you guys just pretended to be white, no I dont care how stupid that sounds"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
I think multiculturalism = voting for democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:It's going to take something catastrophic to prevent a Bush general election win at this point. Hillary had the easiest path to the presidency - smile, wave, be the most by-the-book secretary of the state the world has ever seen and she could have won by a landslide. She couldn't manage that relatively simple task, so she will deserve to lose to Bush. The email scandal is literally about her doing things by the books (albeit the books being out of date and wrong in this case). "Proceed, Governor" was about the Republicans, all the way up to Romney, literally believing that Obama didn't say something that he said in front of the entire world about Benghazi.Then they bitched about the moderator when they were called on their delusional beliefs in a debate and proceeded to haul Clinton in front of committees that will clearly find something wrong with how the administration handled Benghazi any day now. There is nothing Clinton could have done to avoid Republicans slinging poo poo at her. The election outcome will not have anything to do with what she actually did or did not do as Secretary of State, unless perhaps she gets as perfect a chance to call the Republicans on their bullshit as Romney handed to Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
It is much much funnier that he isn't actually referring to multiculturalism in the melting-pot sense of the word. He isn't saying anything that could be considered controversial here, but he somehow manages to sabotage himself nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:07
|
|