|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 22, 2021 23:30:03 GMT
The only way it's a falsehood is if you don't hold them both to the same standards. One has to put in context what and why something was said. Especially if it’s going to be use as a comparison with what someone else said or did. Clearly you need some work in this area. From the Washington Post…. link“What Andrew Cuomo and Kamala Harris said about vaccine skepticism.” “As coronavirus vaccinations continue to pick up speed in the United States, the question is less about how many shots are available, and more about how many people will actually get them. The next big battle in the fight against the virus is against vaccine skepticism — something that’s particularly pronounced among one group: Republicans, and more specifically Republican men. I wrote this week about how Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s often haphazard questioning of the vaccines feeds into that. Every time you write about such things, though, the pushback is similar: What about New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) and Vice President Harris? Months ago, both made comments of questionable wisdom about the safety of the then-impending vaccines. Both indicated that they didn’t fully trust the Trump administration to oversee the process. “The View” host Meghan McCain this week played a clip of Harris’s comments, suggesting what we’re now seeing among Republicans is basically the inverse of that, given we now have a Democratic administration. “Both sides are equally responsible for this,” McCain argued. So it’s worth a closer look at what Cuomo and Harris said, and the apparent impact of those comments. In September, Harris, then the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate, hesitated when asked if she would take a vaccine that was approved before the election.
“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump,” Harris said, “and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about. I will not take his word for it.”Cuomo went further, suggesting he mistrusted not just President Donald Trump, but also the Food and Drug Administration under Trump. Asked about his confidence in the FDA, Cuomo indicated he didn’t have much. “I’m not that confident,” Cuomo said, adding: “You’re going to say to the American people now, ‘Here’s a vaccine, it was new, it was done quickly, but trust this federal administration and their health administration that it’s safe? And we’re not 100 percent sure of the consequences.’ I think it’s going to be a very skeptical American public about taking the vaccine, and they should be.” Cuomo later announced that New York would conduct its own review of the vaccines, because, “Frankly, I’m not going to trust the federal government’s opinion, and I wouldn’t recommend [it] to New Yorkers, based on the federal government’s opinion.” The skepticism of Trump expressed by Harris and of the FDA expressed by Cuomo didn’t come out of nowhere. Trump had spent months offering wild commentary about the reality of the coronavirus outbreak and potential treatments for it, such as disinfectant and hydroxychloroquine. There was also plenty of evidence that he had applied political pressure on the FDA when it came to things such as approving hydroxychloroquine for emergency use — a decision that was later reversed.Trump even admitted applying pressure, which isn’t how the FDA process is supposed to be handled. While then-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn downplayed that pressure early on, he said upon his departure in January that there was indeed “a substantial amount of pressure” to move faster in the summer and fall.Harris’s comments are more easily defensible. She was asked specifically about a pre-election vaccine — a timeline that would have been faster than virtually any expert suggested was possible, and that some suggested might have indicated the vaccine would be rushed to benefit Trump’s reelection bid — and her comments were focused on Trump. She added that she “would trust the word of public health experts and scientists” such as Anthony S. Fauci, “but not Donald Trump.” (President Biden also later offered some clarification about his ticket’s stance, saying, “I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump.”)
Cuomo’s comments were much dicier and could more understandably lead to real skepticism among people who listened to him. He threw a blanket of doubt over the broader administration and nonpartisan health officials, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He was criticized at the time, though not extensively. From there, it’s about whether those comments actually did seed skepticism. But on that count, the evidence isn’t particularly compelling. McCain said that there was equal blame to be shared on this and that the GOP skepticism is mostly a reflection of the change of power in Washington — Republicans not trusting Biden and his administration, just as Democrats didn’t trust Trump. Polls from the very beginning showed that, despite Trump presiding over the government at the time, skepticism and reluctance to get the vaccine was already significantly higher among Republicans. A September Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed just 47 percent of Republicans said they would definitely or probably get the vaccine, vs. 77 percent of Democrats. Two months later — after comments from Harris and Biden and many from Cuomo, and after Biden had won the election — that number for Democrats rose to 86 percent. Republicans also ticked up nine points over that span. Vaccine skepticism, Democrats vs. Republicans. (Kaiser Family Foundation) Today, the relative gulf between the two parties remains about where it was then. One poll this month showed 11 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t get the vaccine, compared with 41 percent of Republicans. Another showed only 6 percent of Democrats said they would probably never get the vaccine, compared with 36 percent of Republicans. Is it possible that comments such as those of Harris and Cuomo could have created doubt beyond their own party’s base rather than in their own? Sure. But these are the people you’d expect to be most likely to listen to those leaders, and they are overwhelmingly more likely to get vaccinated. One thing McCain hit on is undoubtedly correct: Skepticism from Republicans is more ingrained, particularly when it comes to trusting the government. There was always a steeper hill to climb in convincing Republicans to take the vaccine. Perhaps the current partisan gap owes in some part to that rather than to Carlson’s programming, Trump’s reluctance to actually promote the vaccine and other factors such as the long-running effort to downplay the severity of the outbreak. But that makes the actions of those leaders of conservative media more important. Cuomo’s comments were certainly very questionable, but his side was already very much onboard with the vaccine, and it has become even more so since then. He’s also been forceful in recent months encouraging people to get vaccinated. There has been little in the way of a similarly concerted push among top GOP leaders, as best exemplified by Trump declining to tell people to get vaccinated until very recently and also not telling people for weeks that he himself had received one. If the argument is that the media didn’t call out Cuomo in real time, fair enough. As I wrote in my piece on Carlson, it’s valid to ask questions about these processes — especially given the backstory detailed above — but it should always be done with the utmost care, given vaccines work best when large swaths of the population are confident enough to take them. But if the argument is that there’s some kind of comparison between Cuomo’s actions and those who have created and affirmed the huge doubt that exists in the GOP right now — despite these vaccines having been approved under a Republican administration? That’s a much more strained argument.” I will add that CA also put together a panel of independent scientists to review the data from the clinical trials of any vaccine the FDA approved and would require this panel’s approval before allowing the vaccine in the state. This was done because of trump applying pressure on the FDA to speed up the approval process. This act of CA and NY was done because of trumps words and actions when it came to the approval process of the vaccine. One has to put in context what and why something was said. Especially if it’s going to be use as a comparison with what someone else said or did. Clearly you need some work in this area. "Context" is the catch all word that you THINK dismisses your double standard. It doesn't. If you're going to apply the standard of undermining public confidence to Trumps words, “People are refusing to take the Vaccine because they don’t trust his Administration,” the former president said in a statement Sunday, referring to President Biden. “They don’t trust the Election results, and they certainly don’t trust the Fake News.” You have to apply the standard across the board.
If you're going to make excuses for her "I won't take Coronavirus vaccine if" then excuses can be made for Trump's words too. You can't have a standard that only applies to the person you don't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 22, 2021 21:48:07 GMT
Never let it be said I didn’t offer a different view than mine. No I don’t know who this guy is. From the Washington Post. This opinion piece is about how Democrats should treat trump supporters. “ Opinion: Stop insulting Trump voters and their concerns. Talk to them.”Opinion by Gary Abernathy Contributing columnist Today at 8:00 a.m. EDT When supporters of former president Donald Trump hear media pundits analyze them with the usual collection of belittling observations, they must be tempted to respond, “Hey, we’re right here! We can hear you!” Yes, they are indeed here, and living among us. And they have every right to be insulted by being accused of believing a “big lie,” and by the implication that they are violent, or traitors, or mindless sheep — racist sheep, of course. They’re fed up not just with the overt insults, but also with more subtle digs, such as former defense secretary Leon Panetta saying last week that he worries that Trump “will continue to try to somehow sway his followers” to attempt another Jan. 6-style uprising. Followers? No one refers to President Biden’s “followers.” It’s a word generally reserved for adherents of cult figures. I live in Trump Country. I was a Trump supporter, until he lost me with his actions after the 2020 election. But most Trump voters have stuck with him. With Trump’s encouragement, they sincerely believe the election was stolen. They’re not racists. They’re not traitors. Some of them think anyone who accepts Biden’s win is a traitor. Some of them think I’m traitorous — or at the very least I’ve succumbed to the evil influences of the mainstream media — for accepting Trump’s defeat. Polls are occasionally produced to perpetuate the myth that Trump voters are ready for war. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute reported in February that 39 percent of Republicans polled agreed with the statement “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.” The survey’s director, Daniel Cox, acknowledged the speculative nature of the question by cautioning, “We shouldn’t run out and say, ‘Oh my goodness, 40 percent of Republicans are going to attack the Capitol.’ ” No, they aren’t. In fact, the Capitol riot wasn’t mentioned in the question, so it wasn’t necessarily what respondents were thinking of when they answered. It’s my unscientific conclusion that about half of Trump’s supporters will go to their graves believing the election was stolen. The other half can be persuaded otherwise, but only by time and reflection, like accepting a death. Shaming will never work. Don’t forget how the left loudly claimed in 2016 that Russian hackers had influenced millions of Americans to vote for Trump — an accusation that put an unfair cloud on his victory and his ability to govern. In fact, the 2016 election was fair and honest, but foreign powers tried, as they will try again, to impact the result. The 2020 election was also fair and honest, but don’t pretend there weren’t problems, as always, even if they did not change the outcome. Considering the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism recently found that the U.S. media ranks last in trust among 46 countries, some self-examination on this issue should be welcomed. In 2016, the New York Times decided to start applying the word “lie” to many of Trump’s claims. “We owed it to our readers,” executive editor Dean Baquet said at the time. Others followed suit. But using words such as “lie” and “falsely claimed” in news stories arrogantly supposes an absolute knowledge of truth and makes it appear the news outlet has chosen sides. So stop calling people liars. The media should return to the non-accusatory style that worked for decades. Instead of writing that election fraud is a lie, or Republicans are “falsely claiming” fraud, go back to the style that worked for decades: “Republicans again claimed the 2020 election was rigged, but no evidence has emerged to support that allegation and courts have dismissed all suits challenging the results.” Next, abandon the narrative that Trump supporters are insurrectionists, and stop elevating groups such as QAnon and the Proud Boys beyond the fringe elements they are. As shameful as the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was, only about 800 people were involved — hardly representative of millions of Trump supporters. Despite their suspicions, the vast majority of Trump voters are not interested in invading federal buildings or overthrowing the government. They’re interested in going to work and church and soccer games, taking care of their families and voting in the next election. There’s no big mystery to effectively communicating with Trump supporters — or for Trump supporters to communicate with everyone else. Treat each other with politeness and courtesy. Respect other opinions even if you disagree. Acknowledge each other’s patriotism and love of country. Don’t assume you understand each other because you’ve read some think-tank analysis. Reach out, be curious and start a dialogue. Trump supporters aren’t going away, and those who continue to paint them as the lowest forms of life reveal themselves to be more interested in perpetrating stereotypes and nurturing divisions than in achieving what’s needed for our nation to survive — reaching across our political chasm, respecting our differences and finding common ground where we can.” Very well stated. For the record, I do not believe the election was stolen. Biden won. Period. There are some actions and issues that need to be looked at and addressed going forward. Although nothing that affected the outcome of the election. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 22, 2021 20:54:04 GMT
Did she, or are you reading the Republican playbook again? What she actually said is that she doesn’t trust words coming out of Donnie’s mouth: "I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about," she continued in the clip from an exclusive interview airing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" at 9 a.m. ET. "I will not take his word for it." We’ve had this discussion with her multiple times. She just likes repeating the falsehood. The only way it's a falsehood is if you don't hold them both to the same standards. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 22, 2021 20:51:21 GMT
The vaccine DID come out while he was in office. Regardless of what kind of person Trump is, Kamala ALSO undermined public confidence in the vaccine. So, I'm not the one reaching here. Did she, or are you reading the Republican playbook again? What she actually said is that she doesn’t trust words coming out of Donnie’s mouth: "I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about," she continued in the clip from an exclusive interview airing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" at 9 a.m. ET. "I will not take his word for it." Yes, she did. She actually said the words "I won't take Coronavirus vaccine if"
So if you're going to apply the standard of undermining public confidence to Trumps words, “People are refusing to take the Vaccine because they don’t trust his Administration,” the former president said in a statement Sunday, referring to President Biden. “They don’t trust the Election results, and they certainly don’t trust the Fake News.” You have to apply the standard across the board. If you're going to make excuses for her "I won't take Coronavirus vaccine if" then excuses can be made for Trump's words too.
You can't have a standard that only applies to the person you don't like. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 22, 2021 6:17:30 GMT
Defund the police? Actively the only people defunding the police are the Republican Party in congress (yet they scream that it’s the democrats) The point I was making is that this is not true. ^ |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 22, 2021 5:31:05 GMT
The White House got 3 Pinocchios from the Washington Post for trying to push that narrative. Link?
"The Pinocchio Test
We often fact-check claims in which huge spending bills are reduced to one cherry-picked expense out of thousands.
Story continues below advertisement
In this case, there’s not even a line item to attach to the White House’s claim that Republicans are trying to defund the police.
The American Rescue Plan devoted $350 billion to “state and local aid,” a pot of money that was designed for a variety of budget-plugging purposes. Among those is keeping police, teachers and emergency medical technicians at work, but going strictly by the bill text, lawmakers had no guarantee that police would get a slice of the pie.
What’s more, voting against a one-time infusion of cash is not the same as voting to cut funding, so there is little basis to claim that Republicans are trying to “defund the police.”
Psaki and the White House are on more solid ground by framing this talking point in terms of the COPS program, which some Republicans did vote to cut funding for as recently as the Trump administration. That’s the only thing keeping this talking point from being a Four Pinocchio claim.
Overall, we award Three Pinocchios."
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 21, 2021 23:40:47 GMT
I'm with you. There are far more peas that are so far left I just can't debate. I just read and cringe. While I think "wokeness" is a derogatory term used to desribe liberal leaning people, I don't disagree that the more Democrats push for such a far left agenda, the better chance Trump has to become president again. “Wokeness” A republicans derogatory term to describe people (more often than not liberals and progressives) who want to see people treated equally. Their religious views are not and should not be a matter of policy, nor should they be used to harm the lives of others (and they are). You mean some of these “socialist” ideas—- Defund the police? Actively the only people defunding the police are the Republican Party in congress (yet they scream that it’s the democrats)Equal rights, marriage for LBGTQ? The only party trying to eliminate gays are republicans, moderate-to far right. Equality for POC? Why then are republicans hell bent on suppressing their voices, treating them than lesser than? Their voting record in congress shows that they really don’t give a shit about POC. Defund the police? Actively the only people defunding the police are the Republican Party in congress (yet they scream that it’s the democrats) The Democrats have been the ones screaming for the defunding the police for about a year now. Only when it became a liability for them, they TRIED to turn it around on the Republicans. It's been thoroughly debunked. The White House got 3 Pinocchios from the Washington Post for trying to push that narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 21, 2021 4:57:16 GMT
Ok, then we have to apply the same logic to Kamala, as she also undermined public confidence in the vaccine. Trump did nothing but lie, gaslight, and downplay the virus (in addition to all the other lies he told.) NOTHING that came out of his anus-mouth could be trusted. Harris had no confidence in trump or his administration, just like 81 million other people. trump would’ve misled the public about the vaccine in some way had it come out while he was in office. You’re reaching…again. The vaccine DID come out while he was in office. Regardless of what kind of person Trump is, Kamala ALSO undermined public confidence in the vaccine. So, I'm not the one reaching here. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 20, 2021 23:43:38 GMT
Can you post a link to Cruz's lies about the border and a link to Trump telling people not to get vaccinated? All I can see is headlines saying Trump is telling people to GET vaccinated. “Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America” 07/18/21 FacebookTwitterEmailMore “Joe Biden kept talking about how good of a job he's doing on the distribution of the Vaccine that was developed by Operation Warp Speed or, quite simply, the Trump Administration. He's not doing well at all. He's way behind schedule, and people are refusing to take the Vaccine because they don't trust his Administration, they don't trust the Election results, and they certainly don't trust the Fake News, which is refusing to tell the Truth.” From the Washington Post article. “It was only a matter of time until Donald Trump converted the debate over covid-19 vaccines into an occasion for his supporters to show their loyalty to him — and even worse, to the “big lie” that his 2020 loss was illegitimate. “People are refusing to take the Vaccine because they don’t trust his Administration,” the former president said in a statement Sunday, referring to President Biden. “They don’t trust the Election results, and they certainly don’t trust the Fake News.” There you have it: Trump is telling his supporters that they are correct not to trust the federal government on vaccines, because this sentiment should flow naturally from their suspicion that the election was stolen from him. Expressing the former has been magically transformed into a way to show fealty to the latter.” Cruz is on the miscellaneous thread. Now put on your critical skills thinking cap while you read this.“People are refusing to take the Vaccine because they don’t trust his Administration,” the former president said in a statement Sunday, referring to President Biden. “They don’t trust the Election results, and they certainly don’t trust the Fake News.” There you have it: Trump is telling his supporters that they are correct not to trust the federal government on vaccines, Ok, then we have to apply the same logic to Kamala, as she also undermined public confidence in the vaccine. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 19, 2021 20:26:54 GMT
Cruz is ginning up the rhetoric about immigration at the border with lies. And dumpster don is basically telling his followers not to get vaccinated and trying to make it all President Biden’s fault. Would someone please provide examples of the Democrats doing crap like this? Seriously. There are none. Can you post a link to Cruz's lies about the border and a link to Trump telling people not to get vaccinated? All I can see is headlines saying Trump is telling people to GET vaccinated. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 18, 2021 0:49:10 GMT
well as a private company facebook can ban whomever they want.. no justification needed. The WHITE HOUSE is flagging posts FOR Facebook to remove. The White House has effectively REMOVED the argument that Facebook and other social media platforms are privately owned companies working on their own. The fact is that Biden is attempting to go around the first amendment by using big tech to silence free speech. That is horrifying and if they succeed in weaponizing Facebook/Twitter/etc. to blow up the first amendment what are you going to do when a Republican gets in office and uses it to shut you up and push their own horrifying narrative or agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 23:30:51 GMT
What a great idea!  I also want them in the double stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 22:04:48 GMT
It was FACT that kids 14+ were able to get vaccines in Tennessee, all of them, without parental permission. No one is denying that. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 22:03:38 GMT
Rep Waters is not/was not the president. She is a Representative. If you want to talk that level... Add in Louis Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, Clyde(GA), Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson... They surely should be on your inciting the masses list,!! Maxine Waters is on Twitter and Facebook. Video clips of her inciting violence are all over Facebook and Twitter. Not flagged or removed. No warnings. Nothing. Public safety is not their focus. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 21:56:15 GMT
Discussing with and guiding your child to make the best health decision for them specifically vs. a one size fits all approach is NOT at all the same as withholding medical treatment to rely only on prayer. That’s not guiding a child to make a health decision. That’s freaking irresponsible. With regards to making a health decision, zero teens - zero - have been killed or harmed long-term by the US vaccines. Compare that to the numbers who have been seriously injured or killed by Covid. Parents who are using fear mongering and woo science - even if they earnestly believe the misinformation they hear - to justify their political decision not to allow their teen to be vaccinated are just as bad. But the right defends these people as if they’re making some kind of informed decision. It would be laughable if there weren’t teens’ lives at stake. We know a family of teens/young adults in this exact situation, btw, so it’s not just academic to me. The kids want the vaccine and would feel safer at school with it, but the parents won’t allow it. So please save whatever it is that you want to post to try to justify this parental neglect in the name of Trump or Q or Jesus or whatever. I am not interested. This is what I was responding to: I think I heard that in Tennessee kids 14 and up can get the vaccine on their own, no parental approval. Parents in Tennessee are upset about children being able to get the COVID-19 vaccine without permission from their parents. Some state lawmakers are calling to dismantle the state health department. Tennessee parents in general. THAT is the conversation that was going on. YOU introduced conspiracy theorists into the conversation. So I stand by my original statement: "Discussing with and guiding your child to make the best health decision for them specifically vs. a one size fits all approach is NOT at all the same as withholding medical treatment to rely only on prayer." |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 21:27:51 GMT
Keep up-Psaki has already said that anyone banned/deleted on one platform should be banned/deleted on all platforms. This is just the beginning.
Oh, it's only 12 people. Who cares, it's only 1 platform. Hey, it's for the greater good. Look over there, remember Trump?
Your reaction to this is exactly what they're hoping for. A little here and there and nobody will notice or care. How'd that work out for China, Venezuela, and Cuba?
You might have more ground to stand on if you had raised the alarm about Trump’s increasingly authoritarian tactics, discussions of a coup and an attempted insurrection. But, you remained silent and were OK with all of that, so save your outrage. Monitoring your posts, drawing attention to ones with dangerous vaccine misinformation on Facebook or any other social media platforms is not an infringement of your freedom of speech. Facebook and other social media platforms are all privately owned companies. They have the right to flag or remove posts that they deem inappropriate or dangerous. Don’t like it? Then don’t use social media. Furthermore, there are restrictions to your freedom of speech, including speech that is dangerous. The WHITE HOUSE is flagging posts FOR Facebook to remove. The White House has effectively REMOVED the argument that Facebook and other social media platforms are privately owned companies working on their own. Furthermore, they have repeatedly proven they are for banning speech that hurts Democrats, the Biden campaign and their narrative, in any way. They are not banning speech to protect the public. If that was the case, they would ban Maxine Waters for inciting violence. You know since they banned Trump for inciting violence. Auntie Maxine is still on all platforms. So it's clear they're not at all concerned for public safety. It's completely political. Banning speech from the very people educated in and experienced in infectious diseases and viruses, that were saying very early on that it came from a lab. Couldn't allow that since it would've turned the focus of fault away from Trump. Not even for a moment. Banning speech on Hunter's laptop that would have cost Biden votes, so they did. They're not preventing speech that is dangerous, they're preventing speech that goes against their plans. They called truth false and dangerous in order to ban it. Part of the job of citizens, of journalists and responsible political leaders, is to question assumptions. And the fact that they're trying to prevent that is tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 2:55:01 GMT
The same way they've always said ever since the left started trying to cancel those they disagreed with... You fight bad ideas with more speech, not by silencing them. Justice Brandeis (a Democrat): "More speech, not enforced silence" The problem is that President Biden and his administration could talk until they're blue in the face. Supporters of former will not believe anyone in the administration or the mainstream media. Former created so much distrust in the media, Democrats and science. Some of that mistrust may have been there previously but he increased it exponentially. Sadly, another part of the problem is that many people rely on social media for their news. The media and democrats increased distrust exponentially with their own words and actions. And they're sealing the deal with this tyrannical/authoritarian action. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 2:50:34 GMT
All of that information should be discussed between parent, child and their doctor. Who is it that's going to be giving these shots to the child without parental consent? Being aware of problems with the vaccine's side effects on young people, knowing it's still in an experimental/emergency use stage or that the child already has the antibodies and it might not be worth the risk to inject what they already have into the child is NOT the same as relying on only prayer to heal. Ethically, it’s exactly the same. Adults should know better. Discussing with and guiding your child to make the best health decision for them specifically vs. a one size fits all approach is NOT at all the same as withholding medical treatment to rely only on prayer. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 2:29:01 GMT
No one gives a damn how you parse the words.* The fact is that Biden is attempting to go around the first amendment by using big tech to silence free speech. That is horrifying and if they succeed in weaponizing Facebook/Twitter/etc. to blow up the first amendment what are you going to do when a Republican gets in office and uses it to shut you up and push their own horrifying narrative or agenda? *Although I would say that Biden is in fact "uniting" with Facebook. That is what Jen Psaki described. I may have, if I agreed with the assessment. You'd have to show a specific issue you're talking about, because in general I either have when I agreed that he was wrong, or didn't agree with the conclusion the Peas came to, or thought enough people covered it so I didn't say anything. or wasn't around at the time. So if you have something specific and want to link a discussion on it, I'll take a look. Oh, wait... I guess whataboutism is only bad when I do it. Semantics and whataboutism are OK for you to argue, but no one else. Got it. Sorry no, that was your criticism for me. You began that line of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 2:27:49 GMT
There is no proof that the virus came from the lab in Wuhan, they are still investigating. If information regarding the vaccine changes, Facebook can change its policy on vaccine misinformation posts then. Facebook changed its policy regarding the origin of the virus as the information changed. There's no reason for Facebook to stop flagging or removing posts with vaccine misinformation or falsehoods because information might change. You need to be able to question the science. That's what discussion and debate is for, to find the better ideas and the right solutions. To shut down discussion is tyrannical. Bottom line -if you can not discuss it and question it, it's not science, it's propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 2:19:16 GMT
I would like to point out again that the Republicans protesting the White House & Facebook, as per usual, have not offered any useful suggestions for how to fight misinformation or how to increase vaccination rates. Their only role seems to be objecting and blocking. As Biden said today (I'm paraphrasing) The only pandemic in the US is in the unvaccinated. I wish Republican voters and supporters of former could see clearly how former and other Republicans do not care about them. I would like to point out again that the Republicans protesting the White House & Facebook, as per usual, have not offered any useful suggestions for how to fight misinformation or how to increase vaccination rates. Their only role seems to be objecting and blocking. The same way they've always said ever since the left started trying to cancel those they disagreed with... You fight bad ideas with more speech, not by silencing them. Justice Brandeis (a Democrat): "More speech, not enforced silence" |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 2:12:34 GMT
OK, just to clarify. The White House is drawing attention to posts that are false or misleading. They are not marking the posts or removing them. Your first amendment rights are not protected online on a platform owned by a private company. In addition, speech that is dangerous and false is not protected. There is no proof that the virus came from the lab in Wuhan, they are still investigating. If information regarding the vaccine changes, Facebook can change its policy on vaccine misinformation posts then. Facebook changed its policy regarding the origin of the virus as the information changed. There's no reason for Facebook to stop flagging or removing posts with vaccine misinformation or falsehoods because information might change. The White House working with facebook is still not merging. There is no combining, uniting, coalescing or blending. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mergingDefinition of merge transitive verb 1 : to cause to combine, unite, or coalesce (see COALESCE sense 2) merged the two companies 2 : to blend gradually by stages that blur distinctions individuality and uniqueness are merged and blurred — Norman Kelman 3 archaic : to plunge or engulf in something : IMMERSE If you think the Biden Administration is acting authoritarian, why didn't you call out former when he did exactly that? The White House working with facebook is still not merging. There is no combining, uniting, coalescing or blending. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mergingDefinition of merge transitive verb 1 : to cause to combine, unite, or coalesce (see COALESCE sense 2) merged the two companies 2 : to blend gradually by stages that blur distinctions individuality and uniqueness are merged and blurred — Norman Kelman 3 archaic : to plunge or engulf in something : IMMERSE No one gives a damn how you parse the words.* The fact is that Biden is attempting to go around the first amendment by using big tech to silence free speech. That is horrifying and if they succeed in weaponizing Facebook/Twitter/etc. to blow up the first amendment what are you going to do when a Republican gets in office and uses it to shut you up and push their own horrifying narrative or agenda? *Although I would say that Biden is in fact "uniting" with Facebook. That is what Jen Psaki described. If you think the Biden Administration is acting authoritarian, why didn't you call out former when he did exactly that? I may have, if I agreed with the assessment. You'd have to show a specific issue you're talking about, because in general I either have when I agreed that he was wrong, or didn't agree with the conclusion the Peas came to, or thought enough people covered it so I didn't say anything. or wasn't around at the time. So if you have something specific and want to link a discussion on it, I'll take a look. Oh, wait... I guess whataboutism is only bad when I do it. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 17, 2021 1:35:05 GMT
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/17/1007447098/pfizer-covid-vaccine-teens-symptoms-myocarditisNaturally occurring heart inflammation is rare, but it does occur from time to time in teens and young adults. The rate seen after these vaccines is slightly higher than the "background" rate. The CDC says the findings do not change the basic recommendation that all people 12 and older should be vaccinated against COVID-19. However, if a person develops myocarditis after the first dose of one of the mRNA vaccines, a second dose should be delayed until the condition has fully resolved and the heart has returned to a normal state. So, should parents of teens hesitate to have their kids vaccinated against COVID-19? Vaccine experts and the American Academy of Pediatrics say no, don't hesitate. It's good for doctors and patients to be aware that there might be a connection between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, and to report to their pediatrician anything they see in that first week after vaccination. But it is also important, the CDC notes, to recognize that even if this does turn out to be an extremely rare side effect of the vaccine, "most patients who received care responded well to medicine and rest and quickly felt better." And the serious risks of COVID-19 — even for young healthy people — outweigh the risks of any possible side effects from the vaccine. All of that information should be discussed between parent, child and their doctor. Who is it that's going to be giving these shots to the child without parental consent? I feel awful for the teens who want the vaccine but whose parents forbid it. There should be an avenue for them to go around their parents in that case. It’s like the parents who withhold chemo or antibiotics and try to cure their kids with prayer instead. Should be against the law. Being aware of problems with the vaccine's side effects on young people, knowing it's still in an experimental/emergency use stage or that the child already has the antibodies and it might not be worth the risk to inject what they already have into the child is NOT the same as relying on only prayer to heal. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 16, 2021 21:08:51 GMT
From your article: "She believes it’s their place to make decisions for their kids, not the government’s—especially when it comes to the Covid vaccine." I think she's right. With the issue of younger people having heart issues from the vaccine, a parent should be involved in helping with the decision to get the vaccine for their child. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 16, 2021 20:45:04 GMT
Jen Psaki admitted the administration was working with Facebook to remove what they (the WH) deems misinformation. Here’s the exact quote from the press briefing. 1. The White House is only flagging vaccine misinformation posts. We are in the middle of a public health crisis. 99% of the people dying from covid are unvaccinated and 98% of those in hospitals are unvaccinated. Some hospitals are overwhelmed in areas where there are surges. 2. Facebook is flagging or removing the posts, not the White House3. 65% of the vaccine misinformation posts have been tracked back to 12 users who have been banned from other social media platforms www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes4. Interesting that the Republicans complaining like Josh Hawley had no problems with former attacking the media as "fake" news and radical left wing media, failing NYT etc. Maybe if people still trusted media to provide accurate information we wouldn't have as big of a problem with anti -vaxxers. Or perhaps, maybe Senators like Ron Johnson could stop spreading their own vaccine mis-information. Or maybe, if former had publicly received the vaccine instead of in secret, revealed 2 months later. It's incomprehensible to me that Republicans are contributing to the deaths of their own base. 5. Facebook is a private company free to remove or flag posts. Americans are entitled to free speech, but not free speech on social media platforms. And there are restrictions on free speech - yelling fire in a crowded movie theater for example. Falsehoods and misinformation about vaccines are a public health threat. 6. The White Hose is not "merging" with facebook. 7. The White House collaborating with facebook is not fascism. Heres the definition of fascism, according to Merriam-Webster fas·cism | \ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \ Definition of fascism 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge Ironic that those crying fascim now (when it is clearly not) remained silent about former's fascist and autocratic tendencies. Accuse others of what you are guilty of. www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there. On your comments: Your point number 2 contradicts your point number 1. The White House can not both be flagging the posts and NOT flagging the posts. 3. Flagging speech for banning is an attack on the first amendment. 4. Calling out when news reports get it so painfully wrong and correcting it is no where near banning speech. The distrust of media comes from their own actions. THEY created that distrust all on their own. Here's a list from a former investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List
5. Speech that was recently banned proved to be true after all. Discussing that the virus came from a lab in Wuhan was banned speech on social media. Until it was shown PUBLICALLY to be true. And from the Fauci emails we now know that they knew way back when they were banning that speech. The news of information found on Hunter's laptop was banned speech on social media. Before the election it was ATTEMPTED to dismiss it as "Russian disinformation". After the election they finally admitted what some officials were blowing the whistle on... that it was NOT "Russian disinformation" it was real. Banning discussion because your party doesn't like it is beyond alarming. How are you going to react when Republicans come back in office and do that? We are supposed to be able to discuss ideas and let the better ones rise to the top. You can not get to the correct answers and better ideas when you ban discussions. 6. The White House has flat out stated that they're working with social media to ban free speech. 7. From your definition "2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" Working with any social media platform to ban speech is THAT exactly. Just as one example. The Biden administration has now only ADMITTED that they're working with social media to make an attack on free speech. More likely than not, they had already been doing it. It's getting really hard to deny it anymore. And one of the problems is that they have shown they are not trustworthy in what and why they ban speech. They ban speech that hurts them, the Biden campaign and their narrative, in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 15, 2021 21:04:38 GMT
Bitch, read the room. You're not welcome here. Never were. Go away Gia. Yes she can be a royal pain in the ass, as most of us can be, but she has every right to post on this board just like the rest of us do. Your remark is out of line IMO. I appreciate you speaking out against that kind of attitude on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 15, 2021 7:36:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 15, 2021 4:06:54 GMT
Well one political party in America is certainly doing this… |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 15, 2021 3:33:34 GMT
So we've officially moved on to the 'You have backed up all of your opinions with the facts you base them on, you have undeniably disproven all of the claims that you got it wrong, so all we have left is personal attacks portion of the discussion.' "It's important that we totally protect our Asian community in the US and all around the world. They're amazing people and the spreading of the virus is not their fault, in any way shape or form. They are working closely with us to get rid of it. We will prevail together. It's very important." -Trump Yes, I did by showing that your statement that they were only reporting that he said, not saying it themselves, is completely and utterly false. Actually I don’t believe you did answer the question. So we are going to have to disagree on this. You can disagree with the fact that I answered the question all you want. You're wrong. Let me say it again, so you can't miss it again... They simply reported what he said and backed it up with video of him saying it. So just exactly how is that “influencing “."They did more than just report that he said it. THEY said it all on their own in contexts that had absolutely nothing to do with Trump saying it." |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 15, 2021 3:27:34 GMT
Fine, I will ammend what I wrote to say that Trump did not call out strongly enough the anti Asian violence nor did he actually do anything. I can agree with that. It’s as simple as this - Trump is a racist, Biden is not. Nope, Biden is a racist too. To disagree with that you'd have to ignore all of the racist things Biden has said. |
|
