Political Roundtable Part XXX

[nate33]

Spoiler:

Doc, I'll start by saying there's no easy answer. There's also no answer that would have likely prevented a significant loss of life.

There is. Vaccines. They work. If we had them early on we could have prevented the spread and mutation of the disease.

I'm also not anti-vaccine. But I'm confident that not enough research has been done with MRNA technology and its impact on the human body. (I won't even get into that trash ass J&J shot). As regular boosters have become a part of regime, i feel even less comfortable with the vax option. There is no long term study showing the impact of continued boosters on our bodies. Its as if were going along with the 'best' choice at the moment with zero consideration to what the long term implications could be... especially since we've learned its a leaky vax. As we should know, not all vaccines are created equal. Some are much better than others. A vaccine that doesn't protect you from infection and whose effectiveness wains after a few months is not an ideal vax and can create more problems than it's worth.

We can refer to the other thread but even post-Delta in the Omicron era, the vaccines deter infection. Leaky or no. In the Denmark study cited, vaccinated members in the same household as an infected person are only ~30% likely to catch the virus. 70% effective is still a strong number. This is up from the Delta variant where the vaccines were 80% likely to prevent infection, and up from the original strain for which it was developed (as much as 96% protection). But that is significantly better than say, the Flu vaccine which is only 40-60% effective. This is because influenza has become endemic, multiplies readily, and each year brings a new strain. Every year vulnerable people require a new flu shot. The difference is that because the flu has been around for millenia antibodies have developed in populations that make people flu resistant, and also that vulnerable people in history who contracted the flu already died off, their genes that made them vulnerable did not pass on.

The hope is still that if we can slow the growth of this virus science can stay ahead of it, and we won't have to have mass die-offs to develop herd immunity. If we had a vaccine early on that slowed the spread of the virus to 30% of its speed across populations (and we were able to deliver it to India and South Africa) we would not have had an Omicron variant.

If we had a vaccine that was even 70% effective at the start of this epidemic, 560,000 Americans would still be alive.

Does the vaccine reduce serious illness? It appears so. Did a flu shot help the flu? Yes. Did we mandate flu shots and fire people from their jobs for not taking a flu shot? No.

Hospitals and Nursing Homes require flu vaccinations. Schools require MMR shots before kids are allowed to enroll. Yes, we do. We had effectively defeated measles until Facebook posts allowed anti-vaxx misinformation to spread.

Does a healthy diet significantly reduce the chance of illness? Yes. Do we mandate people to eat healthy to reduce the burden of care for doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies? No.

Totally off the point. You cannot pass obesity to 7 people. If you could contract morbid obesity by breathing the same air in an elevator as a big boy then hell yes we would see vaccines and mandates for anti-fat vaxx.

There's never an easy answer for everything but the current response screams overreach from governments across the world.

Fckn how. How is it overreach to form a public policy to prevent mass death.

800,000 Americans dead. That is over 13 Viet Nam Memorial walls worth of dead Americans. In one year killing more Americans than 30 years of the AIDS epidemic. It's not enough to say 'yeah that's bad, but hey people die'. We have no natural immunity to this thing, so it spreads like wildfire. There is no firewall to slow it down. EXCEPT vaccines or mass death. The very purpose of government in the first place is to protect people, even against their own choices. Dangerous drugs are illegal. Medicines are controlled. People are crying that these vaccines haven't been tested enough, in part because we are used to them being tested for up to 10 years before they are sent to market. And if not they are illegal.

This is a case where it is overwhelmingly in the public good NOT to delay the use of an effective treatment. This is a case where Government very sensibly has flexed in order to protect the largest number of people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare

Health and Welfare. Defense. Insuring Domestic peace. Ensuring that more Americans don't die and that we can safely open society (and our economy). We have Fire Marshall codes determining how many people can safely stand in one place. We have banned smoking indoors. Children cannot buy guns. And yes if you want to put your kid in public school they have to be vaccinated against the most virulent diseases.

It is reasonable to be hesitant and skeptical. It is fair to be concerned about your individual personal liberty. Marijuana should be legalized at a federal level. Prostitution should be legalized taxed and regulated to ensure sex workers have access to regular health care, as it is in Amsterdam. The government should not force women to keep an embryo in her body. The intelligence agencies should not be in our personal lives.

But absolutely government should have a policy to deal with the cataclysmic overgrowth of a newly mutated virus. The options are: lockdowns, mass death, or science. Doubtless there will be better science as we go, but so far to me the development of these vaccines in that short of a period of time is a f****ing miracle. I'm proud as hell of our scientific community, even if, yeah, huge pharmaceutical corporations stand to benefit from their work. They did remarkably good work with zero time to do it.

You will not change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. That time has long since past my friend. We're locked into these roles. Your vaxxed and likely boostered and I've already risked family, friends, reputation and my way of life on this issue but with no fear of losing any of it. I've had enough arguments and getting talked down to by those who simply have no business doing so to be over the discussions completely, not sure why i drug myself into this. Maybe its my small way lashing out at those i know for being isolated and the continued encouragement of such policies to inflict more limitations. I've bit my tongue tho for the most part but its really tough. Especially from those I felt a connection with on some level.

Call me selfish, self absorbed. Call me a fool or idiot or someone not deserving of medical care. Retreat to person of moral authority, i get that alot. It gets a chuckle from me now. That's what we've been told to do. Make those unvaxxed idiots on the right the scapegoat because we need to blame something even though I'm one of many african-americans who remain 'vaccine hesitant' and I most adsuredly do not lean right wing. I realize my reasoning won't make sense to you. My conclusion will likely have few co-signers. My decision is just what resonates with me. I stand in what I believe in, not what anyone else tells me I should believe. I've listened but after 2 years I have enough confidence and information to make a reasoned decision to say the continued vaccine & booster regimen is riskier longterm than any of the current strains of covid for a person like myself with no comorbidities. Obviously that's not everyone. If i had comorbidities or didn't intermittent fast daily, didn't have a low carb, 0 sugar diet and wasn't in terrific shape I might weigh the risk differently.

And yes, i don't trust the science. Doesn't mean I never have or don't see the value. I just don't trust eager, greedy biomedical companies to get it right when rushed. This is coming from someone who has worked from all healthcare viewpoints. Insurers, biomedical firms, patient case management and end care and now the medical research/grants management space. Competency is a rare trait even among elite thinkers. Good intentions, bad results is a common theme. The Novavax option looks intriguing but even then I don't trust them to get it right, right away.

This.

* The vaccines are less effective than they are letting on. A big trick with the data is counting the first two weeks after getting the jab as still being unvaccinated, even though the jabs trigger a temporary reduction in the immune system that increases infection rate, hospitalization and death. If you place those hospitalizations and deaths properly into the vaccinated column instead of the unvaccinated, it significantly reduces reported vaccine effectiveness.

* One long term concern about the vaccination is a concept know as Original Antigenic Sin. The vaccines prime you to fight the virus in one, and only one, specific way. As the virus mutates, the vaccine becomes less effective at handling variants, but the vaccine has already pre-programmed your system to fight Covid in a narrow, specific manner. There is evidence that this pre-programming is difficult to unlearn. Basically, the vaccinated may not adapt to new variants as well as the naturally immune will, and the vaccinated may never develop as robust of an immunity to future variants. We have evidence of that now with Omicron with the vaccinated having a significantly higher case rate than the unvaccinated in every developed country with a robust health care database. It's simply not true that we can safely assume that there will be no long term effects from the vaccines. This issue has happened with vaccines before, like the one for the Dengue Virus.

* There are also short term hazards with the vaccine associated with myocarditis, particularly with males under 40. The risk of the vaccines inducing myocarditis in males under 40 are greater than the risk of Covid inducing myocarditis.

* Natural immunity is way more effective than vaccination. We have CDC data on this, but of course they report in a backhanded manner in an effort to suppress the truth. (Scroll to the end of the article and you will see that natural immunity provides a 15-fold to 29-fold improvement on infection odds, whereas the vaccines provide only 4.5-fold to 6-fold improvement. This is CDC data involving mostly Delta.)

* The risk of Covid for the reasonably young and reasonably healthy is extremely low. The young and healthy are not the ones filling hospitals. In a massive study of multiple countries and states, between 0.7% and 3.6% of all deaths are suffered by those under 65 without comorbidities. And most of them were probably between 50 and 65.

* Vaccines are not stopping the spread at all. At least not with Omicron. Indeed, the likelihood is that the vaccinated are increasing the spread. Vaccinated nations are having much higher case rates. So the argument that one should get vaccinated to save Grandma is manifestly untrue. Vaccines had only a very limited impact on stopping the spread with Delta.

All of the above does not mean that the vaccines are inherently bad. They have reduced hospitalizations and deaths for Alpha and Delta (though the reduction isn't quite as large as perceived). But the risk/reward calculation for the vaccines is not so cut and dry for all people. Older, unhealthy people should probably take them. Youngish, healthy people probably should not. Kids definitely should not, unless they have serious comorbidities.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Count me in if we are going after this - our healthcare system is truly f'd now. We could keep up with those with unhealthy eating habits before - now, not so much. What does that mean? It means that there will be reduced efficacy in treatment for the healthy going forward.

That we haven't addressed this issue is truly mindboggling - I guess it takes a pandemic for folks to actually see how big a problem this is?

Incentivizing? Yes. Mandating? Thats definitely something I'm uncomfortable with.

How would it be done? A tax deduction? A rebate through your employer's health insurance? I would love to see a bonafide program that rewards folks for staying healthy, incentivizes american corporations to come up with healthier options and possibly penalize/tax those corporations whose percentage of profits from unhealthy options exceed a certain threshold.

Tax unhealthy foods and drinks both at a federal and state level. Your idea of taxing those same corporations. Free healthcare and mental healthcare services around reducing obesity. Federal mandate adding classes that discuss what is healthy eating to the current K12 curricula (we won't see the benefits for a generation).

Subsidize healthy eating instruction on a local level and have ad campaigns that discuss what is good food - similar to what we did to drive down the number of smokers.

Come up with a vaccine that reduces obesity. Only 20% of Americans won't take that one - but they might be swayed in time not to take the booster.

At some point there will have to be a way to go after corporate malfeasance and the wealthy for this. Dumping the responsibility of resolving the issue onto the poor and middle class is a recipe for a game of whackamole that never ends and continues to get worse over time. You mentioned smoking but really, vaping and other drugs have replaced tobacco and the tobacco industry is still booming (more than ever) because the problem has been offloaded onto the rest of the world where they don't have the financial capacity to fight back in any real legal sense.

There will have to be some personal stuff involved in solutions but it's a drop in the bucket. Letting the private sector do their own studies and manipulate the data as they see fit saves money on public studies but also comes with absolutely huge costs down the line. You can't have the Sacklers making a fortune while costing everyone else several times that much to clean up their mess. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

There are major problems in almost every industry. Self-regulation is a terrible idea and the funding of the regulatory stuff absolutely should come from those sectors involved with an incentive built in somehow to avoid malfeasance and to report on the malfeasance of their competitors because it would drive down regulatory costs they would pay, rather than just getting in on the scam themselves. The entire regulatory capture thjng is a major problem right now. Covid is going to seem like the least of it in a few years. The environment is definitely the biggest issue too, as that also bleeds into health. My cutting out paper straws won't save the world from all the hidden corporate pollution out there.

[pancakes3]

i mean, sounds like Dat's not mad at the vaccine but rather latching on and projecting the actual source of his anger and frustration onto the vaccine because of what it represents, at least in his mind's eye. that emotion is a real emotion, no doubt. but it's also an emotion, and not logic, which is why he has to bend over backwards to defend it. pretty obvious when everything ends with a hint of "yeah, well that's just like your opinion man."

fact of the matter is that there are vaccines pumping in each one of our bloodstreams already. diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, measles, rubella, and some of us are young enough to have chickenpox. the medical benefits of being vaccinated, and the requisite authority that a government (federal or state) has to implement the vaccine are pretty much indisputable. however, given the political value that Republicans have seized upon, coupled with the fact that we live in a democracy, it is now disputable.

like, you don't even have to be a q-believer - just a run of the mill joe rogan listener like Dat, to be convinced that being the vaccine will lead to you being controlled when in actuality, the control comes in the republican party being able to politicize a non-political issue; creating political platforms out of thin air, when expert consensus in the field clearly and resoundingly declare that there is no controversy... THAT is the control. the media spin is ingenious. that isn't to say that Dem's don't spin either. Republicans are just so much better at it.*

Republicans do not have much of a platform, but to create chaos out of order, they gain a platform. Dat, who in his heart of hearts, knows that republicans are bad, has been sucked into thinking that a vaccine mandate is somehow bad, or unfair, or a form of control, or something else that can't really be articulated.

The same goes for climate change. it is a non-partisan issue that the world's scientists all agree is an existential threat. yet some how it's politicized. abortion arguments was spun out of whole cloth in the 70's. traditional church doctrines talk about "quickening" and "ensoulment" which (1) is not useful for a legal framework; and (2) is explicitly counterfactual to life begins at conception.


*much harder for dems though. it's hard to build something, and it's easy to tear something down. it's hard to message a build back better bill in a way that resonates with all americans, and corporations. it's easy to say "too expensive" or "too partisan"

[nate33]

Incentivizing? Yes. Mandating? Thats definitely something I'm uncomfortable with.

How would it be done? A tax deduction? A rebate through your employer's health insurance? I would love to see a bonafide program that rewards folks for staying healthy, incentivizes american corporations to come up with healthier options and possibly penalize/tax those corporations whose percentage of profits from unhealthy options exceed a certain threshold.

Tax unhealthy foods and drinks both at a federal and state level. Your idea of taxing those same corporations. Free healthcare and mental healthcare services around reducing obesity. Federal mandate adding classes that discuss what is healthy eating to the current K12 curricula (we won't see the benefits for a generation).

Subsidize healthy eating instruction on a local level and have ad campaigns that discuss what is good food - similar to what we did to drive down the number of smokers.

Come up with a vaccine that reduces obesity. Only 20% of Americans won't take that one - but they might be swayed in time not to take the booster.

At some point there will have to be a way to go after corporate malfeasance and the wealthy for this. Dumping the responsibility of resolving the issue onto the poor and middle class is a recipe for a game of whackamole that never ends and continues to get worse over time. You mentioned smoking but really, vaping and other drugs have replaced tobacco and the tobacco industry is still booming (more than ever) because the problem has been offloaded onto the rest of the world where they don't have the financial capacity to fight back in any real legal sense.

There will have to be some personal stuff involved in solutions but it's a drop in the bucket. Letting the private sector do their own studies and manipulate the data as they see fit saves money on public studies but also comes with absolutely huge costs down the line. You can't have the Sacklers making a fortune while costing everyone else several times that much to clean up their mess. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

There are major problems in almost every industry. Self-regulation is a terrible idea and the funding of the regulatory stuff absolutely should come from those sectors involved with an incentive built in somehow to avoid malfeasance and to report on the malfeasance of their competitors because it would drive down regulatory costs they would pay, rather than just getting in on the scam themselves. The entire regulatory capture thjng is a major problem right now. Covid is going to seem like the least of it in a few years. The environment is definitely the biggest issue too, as that also bleeds into health. My cutting out paper straws won't save the world from all the hidden corporate pollution out there.

We are at the point where there is no longer any fair, unbiased, scientific arbiters of truth. With globalism, the profit potential is so high, that corruption is unavoidable. It doesn't matter what political structures we put into place to try and prevent it. The politicians and bureaucrats will simply be bought off by Big-Pharma, Big-Agriculture, Big-Oil, Big-Banks, etc. And they will pay the media, academia, and other opinion-makers to ruthlessly crush any dissenting opinions by threatening their jobs and livelihood, and silencing them on the major social media platforms.

The best defense against this is unrestricted free speech, and that's exactly what is being taken away.

[dckingsfan]

Do nothing because the "we can't trust government" mantra has worked so well for us in this pandemic, climate change and monopolization.

So remedy? Continue to do nothing? Trust no one? Trust me, you can't trust them!

[Kanyewest]

Do nothing because the "we can't trust government" mantra has worked so well for us in this pandemic, climate change and monopolization.

So remedy? Continue to do nothing? Trust no one? Trust me, you can't trust them!

Profit potential is also high in disinformation as well. So don't do anything and do something - wait I'm confused.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Tax unhealthy foods and drinks both at a federal and state level. Your idea of taxing those same corporations. Free healthcare and mental healthcare services around reducing obesity. Federal mandate adding classes that discuss what is healthy eating to the current K12 curricula (we won't see the benefits for a generation).

Subsidize healthy eating instruction on a local level and have ad campaigns that discuss what is good food - similar to what we did to drive down the number of smokers.

Come up with a vaccine that reduces obesity. Only 20% of Americans won't take that one - but they might be swayed in time not to take the booster.

At some point there will have to be a way to go after corporate malfeasance and the wealthy for this. Dumping the responsibility of resolving the issue onto the poor and middle class is a recipe for a game of whackamole that never ends and continues to get worse over time. You mentioned smoking but really, vaping and other drugs have replaced tobacco and the tobacco industry is still booming (more than ever) because the problem has been offloaded onto the rest of the world where they don't have the financial capacity to fight back in any real legal sense.

There will have to be some personal stuff involved in solutions but it's a drop in the bucket. Letting the private sector do their own studies and manipulate the data as they see fit saves money on public studies but also comes with absolutely huge costs down the line. You can't have the Sacklers making a fortune while costing everyone else several times that much to clean up their mess. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

There are major problems in almost every industry. Self-regulation is a terrible idea and the funding of the regulatory stuff absolutely should come from those sectors involved with an incentive built in somehow to avoid malfeasance and to report on the malfeasance of their competitors because it would drive down regulatory costs they would pay, rather than just getting in on the scam themselves. The entire regulatory capture thjng is a major problem right now. Covid is going to seem like the least of it in a few years. The environment is definitely the biggest issue too, as that also bleeds into health. My cutting out paper straws won't save the world from all the hidden corporate pollution out there.

We are at the point where there is no longer any fair, unbiased, scientific arbiters of truth. With globalism, the profit potential is so high, that corruption is unavoidable. It doesn't matter what political structures we put into place to try and prevent it. The politicians and bureaucrats will simply be bought off by Big-Pharma, Big-Agriculture, Big-Oil, Big-Banks, etc. And they will pay the media, academia, and other opinion-makers to ruthlessly crush any dissenting opinions by threatening their jobs and livelihood, and silencing them on the major social media platforms.

The best defense against this is unrestricted free speech, and that's exactly what is being taken away.

So your argument is that we're all dead anyway. Can't win, don't try?

If we accept that the truth isn't free anymore then we have to accept that speech isn't either. You pay for your mouthpiece and pay to shout someone down or drown things out by shouting everything at once. Speech has always been somewhat commodified but that angle accelerates things rather significantly.

Truths are generally not what people were expecting or wanted to hear. And there's a difference between getting things wrong and reevaluating with new information and just blasting out your emotions and sticking with it. We can have experts guide us to the best their able and at least minimize the interference even if we can't get rid of it entirely.

[nate33]

Do nothing because the "we can't trust government" mantra has worked so well for us in this pandemic, climate change and monopolization.

So remedy? Continue to do nothing? Trust no one? Trust me, you can't trust them!

Trusting the government CAUSED the pandemic. Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.

And your point about monopolization is true. The government has done nothing to stop it and mostly only pulls in the direction of more globalism, which only increases monopolies. And it's these monopolies that now control speech in this country.

[Dat2U]

i mean, sounds like Dat's not mad at the vaccine but rather latching on and projecting the actual source of his anger and frustration onto the vaccine because of what it represents, at least in his mind's eye. that emotion is a real emotion, no doubt. but it's also an emotion, and not logic, which is why he has to bend over backwards to defend it. pretty obvious when everything ends with a hint of "yeah, well that's just like your opinion man."

fact of the matter is that there are vaccines pumping in each one of our bloodstreams already. diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, measles, rubella, and some of us are young enough to have chickenpox. the medical benefits of being vaccinated, and the requisite authority that a government (federal or state) has to implement the vaccine are pretty much indisputable. however, given the political value that Republicans have seized upon, coupled with the fact that we live in a democracy, it is now disputable.

like, you don't even have to be a q-believer - just a run of the mill joe rogan listener like Dat, to be convinced that being the vaccine will lead to you being controlled when in actuality, the control comes in the republican party being able to politicize a non-political issue; creating political platforms out of thin air, when expert consensus in the field clearly and resoundingly declare that there is no controversy... THAT is the control. the media spin is ingenious. that isn't to say that Dem's don't spin either. Republicans are just so much better at it.*

Republicans do not have much of a platform, but to create chaos out of order, they gain a platform. Dat, who in his heart of hearts, knows that republicans are bad, has been sucked into thinking that a vaccine mandate is somehow bad, or unfair, or a form of control, or something else that can't really be articulated.

The same goes for climate change. it is a non-partisan issue that the world's scientists all agree is an existential threat. yet some how it's politicized. abortion arguments was spun out of whole cloth in the 70's. traditional church doctrines talk about "quickening" and "ensoulment" which (1) is not useful for a legal framework; and (2) is explicitly counterfactual to life begins at conception.


*much harder for dems though. it's hard to build something, and it's easy to tear something down. it's hard to message a build back better bill in a way that resonates with all americans, and corporations. it's easy to say "too expensive" or "too partisan"

I have not listened to Joe Rogan a single day in my life. Nothing about me is run of the mill. And your one size fits all response does not capture my thoughts in the least. Thanks for playing though.

[Dat2U]

Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.
.

[Dat2U]

i mean, sounds like Dat's not mad at the vaccine but rather latching on and projecting the actual source of his anger and frustration onto the vaccine because of what it represents, at least in his mind's eye. that emotion is a real emotion, no doubt. but it's also an emotion, and not logic, which is why he has to bend over backwards to defend it. pretty obvious when everything ends with a hint of "yeah, well that's just like your opinion man."

I care about the vaccine being available, because Im concerned about the risks and its impact on the immune system but also if you wanna take it, take it. I believe in a persons right to choose. My real angst is the mandate.

fact of the matter is that there are vaccines pumping in each one of our bloodstreams already. diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, measles, rubella, and some of us are young enough to have chickenpox. the medical benefits of being vaccinated, and the requisite authority that a government (federal or state) has to implement the vaccine are pretty much indisputable. however, given the political value that Republicans have seized upon, coupled with the fact that we live in a democracy, it is now disputable.

None of these vaxxes use MRNA technology, which conviently gets ignored in these responses. Bringing up past vaxxes isnt relevant to a discussion on MRNA vaxxes.

like, you don't even have to be a q-believer - just a run of the mill joe rogan listener like Dat, to be convinced that being the vaccine will lead to you being controlled when in actuality, the control comes in the republican party being able to politicize a non-political issue; creating political platforms out of thin air, when expert consensus in the field clearly and resoundingly declare that there is no controversy... THAT is the control. the media spin is ingenious. that isn't to say that Dem's don't spin either. Republicans are just so much better at it.*

Its possible for people to form their own opinions you know. i think mandates are a slippery slope but ultimately the reason im not getting vaxxed is because i think its ****, leaky vaccine with long term health risks & implications. I view vaccine injury as a bigger risk than Covid. It's really that simple.

Republicans do not have much of a platform, but to create chaos out of order, they gain a platform. Dat, who in his heart of hearts, knows that republicans are bad, has been sucked into thinking that a vaccine mandate is somehow bad, or unfair, or a form of control, or something else that can't really be articulated.

Again, i didn't need a republican to tell me how to feel. Its disrespectful. Your basically calling me a brainwashed fool to blind to see reality because the repubs pulled the wool over my eyes.

The same goes for climate change. it is a non-partisan issue that the world's scientists all agree is an existential threat. yet some how it's politicized. abortion arguments was spun out of whole cloth in the 70's. traditional church doctrines talk about "quickening" and "ensoulment" which (1) is not useful for a legal framework; and (2) is explicitly counterfactual to life begins at conception.

Im not here to debate climate change. I'll leave that to the experts/folks that care about it.


I

[pancakes3]

Im not here to debate climate change. I'll leave that to the experts/folks that care about it.

Well, this pretty much encapsulates it. You're willing to trust the experts on climate science but not vaccines. You're willing to acknowledge the authority on climate change but not virology/epidemiology.

Like, cool, you don't listen to Joe Rogan, but you are convinced by the same arguments as him, and arrived at the same conclusion as him. My only point is that you were looking for a reason to say no, and Republicans provided those reasons. Scratch that, maybe Republicans as an institution didn't provide those reasons, but it didn't stop them from jumping on the effects and benefitting politically through it.

Putting it simply, they're preying on fear, and you had existing fears to be preyed upon.

It's even more telling in that you don't even want to argue the core concept of vaccine mandates, and attempt to distinguish the covid vaccine from other mandated vaccines. It was a cognitive dissonance that you're attempting to resolve through your internal set of logic.

It all stems back to the discussions we were having 5-6 years ago of the erosion of public trust. People have less trust of the government, on all levels, and the soft spots for whatever pet issues that each person individually have with respect to their lack of public trust (big pharma, big oil, big tech, wall street, evangelical influence, political nepotism and corruption, violent crime/policing, racism, xenophobia) span the political spectrum, and result in irrational backing what used to be non-political agendas that are now politicized.

Economists push for free trade and open immigration. Settled principles. It's politicized.
Climate scientists push for carbon reduction. Settled principles. It's politicized.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title I was voting rights) passed 73-27. Settled principles. It's now politicized.
The list goes on and on. The freaking NFL was politicized.

this stuff isn't rocket science. we all know what a better society looks like. it's the partisanship, and irrational overweighing of each of our personal pet issues, that prevents us from achieving it.

Like, a personal disagreement about the vaccine on Dat's part is evolving into internal turmoil and further degrading his public trust in the Dems. Bit by bit, voter by voter, the waters are muddied, and it's Republicans that ultimately win because they thrive on indecisive/undecided voters.

[TGW]

As someone who’s vaccinated, I can honestly say respectively that white liberals have a lot of nerve telling black people what to do with their bodies. If black people have reserves about getting a government mandated injection, respect the reservations and come up with a way other than shame to get people to get vaccinated. Offer incentives. But if you’re some white lib trying to shame me into getting vaccinated, kiss my black you know what. Dat—don’t be pressured by those morons. Do what you feel is best for you and yours.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Do nothing because the "we can't trust government" mantra has worked so well for us in this pandemic, climate change and monopolization.

So remedy? Continue to do nothing? Trust no one? Trust me, you can't trust them!

Trusting the government CAUSED the pandemic. Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.

And your point about monopolization is true. The government has done nothing to stop it and mostly only pulls in the direction of more globalism, which only increases monopolies. And it's these monopolies that now control speech in this country.

Right. It's the monopolies and corporate dominance that are the problem, not the government. If they've taken over the government the solution is to fix the government, not abandon it altogether. Abandoning it is precisely what corporate dominance wants. It's not like there will suddenly be no government. It will just take an entirely different form. If the people don't control what that form looks like, the money definitely will - it already is.

We might even be passed the point of no return for all I know. But if we are this discussion is entirely moot because the outcome isn't in doubt.

Honestly, I'm somewhat confused at how you come out against going after the bigger stuff rather than just opening up the gates for it all. Regulating environmental and health practices at the corporate level is also a fantastic was to repatriate production by heavily sanctioning stuff that's moved out of the country to take advantage of more lax environmental practices and such. It's also easier to manage inflation when you have a job with a better wage.

Personally, I'd also love a but of a rethink on quantitative easing. Stagflation isn't the only potential negative. When regulatory capture has all of the economic growth going to a tiny cabal and isn't factoring in environmental/social/human/health costs, stimulating economic growth at the cost of heavy spending isn't necessarily as great if a deal as it might seem.

[pancakes3]

As someone who’s vaccinated, I can honestly say respectively that white liberals have a lot of nerve telling black people what to do with their bodies. If black people have reserves about getting a government mandated injection, respect the reservations and come up with a way other than shame to get people to get vaccinated. Offer incentives. But if you’re some white lib trying to shame me into getting vaccinated, kiss my black you know what. Dat—don’t be pressured by those morons. Do what you feel is best for you and yours.

getting the covid vaccine is not the same as the tuskeegee studies and you dishonor the victims of that atrocity in drawing the comparison.

[nate33]

Do nothing because the "we can't trust government" mantra has worked so well for us in this pandemic, climate change and monopolization.

So remedy? Continue to do nothing? Trust no one? Trust me, you can't trust them!

Trusting the government CAUSED the pandemic. Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.

And your point about monopolization is true. The government has done nothing to stop it and mostly only pulls in the direction of more globalism, which only increases monopolies. And it's these monopolies that now control speech in this country.

Right. It's the monopolies and corporate dominance that are the problem, not the government. If they've taken over the government the solution is to fix the government, not abandon it altogether. Abandoning it is precisely what corporate dominance wants. It's not like there will suddenly be no government. It will just take an entirely different form. If the people don't control what that form looks like, the money definitely will - it already is.

We might even be passed the point of no return for all I know. But if we are this discussion is entirely moot because the outcome isn't in doubt.

Honestly, I'm somewhat confused at how you come out against going after the bigger stuff rather than just opening up the gates for it all. Regulating environmental and health practices at the corporate level is also a fantastic was to repatriate production by heavily sanctioning stuff that's moved out of the country to take advantage of more lax environmental practices and such. It's also easier to manage inflation when you have a job with a better wage.

Personally, I'd also love a but of a rethink on quantitative easing. Stagflation isn't the only potential negative. When regulatory capture has all of the economic growth going to a tiny cabal and isn't factoring in environmental/social/human/health costs, stimulating economic growth at the cost of heavy spending isn't necessarily as great if a deal as it might seem.

I'm not opposed to more regulation. I just don't think it will do any good until we first reduce the size and power of multinational corporations. If we give government more regulatory power right now, the politicians and bureaucrats will just be corrupted by multinational money and they will ultimately use the power of regulation to crush smaller business, thereby assisting the multinationals in maintaining their monopoly status.

Consider Covid. Nearly every regulatory feature of it served to crush small business and expand the power and wealth of multinationals.

We need trust-busting first. Regulation next.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Trusting the government CAUSED the pandemic. Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.

And your point about monopolization is true. The government has done nothing to stop it and mostly only pulls in the direction of more globalism, which only increases monopolies. And it's these monopolies that now control speech in this country.

Right. It's the monopolies and corporate dominance that are the problem, not the government. If they've taken over the government the solution is to fix the government, not abandon it altogether. Abandoning it is precisely what corporate dominance wants. It's not like there will suddenly be no government. It will just take an entirely different form. If the people don't control what that form looks like, the money definitely will - it already is.

We might even be passed the point of no return for all I know. But if we are this discussion is entirely moot because the outcome isn't in doubt.

Honestly, I'm somewhat confused at how you come out against going after the bigger stuff rather than just opening up the gates for it all. Regulating environmental and health practices at the corporate level is also a fantastic was to repatriate production by heavily sanctioning stuff that's moved out of the country to take advantage of more lax environmental practices and such. It's also easier to manage inflation when you have a job with a better wage.

Personally, I'd also love a but of a rethink on quantitative easing. Stagflation isn't the only potential negative. When regulatory capture has all of the economic growth going to a tiny cabal and isn't factoring in environmental/social/human/health costs, stimulating economic growth at the cost of heavy spending isn't necessarily as great if a deal as it might seem.

I'm not opposed to more regulation. I just don't think it will do any good until we first reduce the size and power of multinational corporations. If we give government more regulatory power right now, the politicians and bureaucrats will just be corrupted by multinational money and they will ultimately use the power of regulation to crush smaller business, thereby assisting the multinationals in maintaining their monopoly status.

Consider Covid. Nearly every regulatory feature of it served to crush small business and expand the power and wealth of multinationals.

We need trust-busting first. Regulation next.

We absolutely need some trust busting. Covid was a disaster for small businesses. We needed to see small businesses and employees supported and instead we saw corporate overreach.

I will say, while I can't confirm this is the same everywhere, where I live there tends to be an idea to vote in for smaller government. The result? When covid hit governments didn't actually reach out to anyone and took the advice of people that were there waiting to guide them. Those people weren't small businesses or employees or even public servants. They were lobbyists from Walmart, Oil companies and McDonald's. And yes, this is more than rumor for me.

The catch is how we go about trust busting and I feel that fits heavily into gunning at big corporate. Use that to fund public health, labor, environmental standards, tax simplification, etc. Don't get me wrong, it will have to come from other sources too but that needs to be a big part of it.

The biggest issue we're seeing is one of an unwillingness to accept delayed gratification. Taxes and government aren't inherently bad, just imperfect. You improve on them, not throw them away. We could use a fair amount of rethinking there but what we're seeing now is so much worse. The world doesn't need another British East India Company but with modern technology/pollution capacity and an expansion into space. That would be terrible.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Trusting the government CAUSED the pandemic. Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.

And your point about monopolization is true. The government has done nothing to stop it and mostly only pulls in the direction of more globalism, which only increases monopolies. And it's these monopolies that now control speech in this country.

Right. It's the monopolies and corporate dominance that are the problem, not the government. If they've taken over the government the solution is to fix the government, not abandon it altogether. Abandoning it is precisely what corporate dominance wants. It's not like there will suddenly be no government. It will just take an entirely different form. If the people don't control what that form looks like, the money definitely will - it already is.

We might even be passed the point of no return for all I know. But if we are this discussion is entirely moot because the outcome isn't in doubt.

Honestly, I'm somewhat confused at how you come out against going after the bigger stuff rather than just opening up the gates for it all. Regulating environmental and health practices at the corporate level is also a fantastic was to repatriate production by heavily sanctioning stuff that's moved out of the country to take advantage of more lax environmental practices and such. It's also easier to manage inflation when you have a job with a better wage.

Personally, I'd also love a but of a rethink on quantitative easing. Stagflation isn't the only potential negative. When regulatory capture has all of the economic growth going to a tiny cabal and isn't factoring in environmental/social/human/health costs, stimulating economic growth at the cost of heavy spending isn't necessarily as great if a deal as it might seem.

I'm not opposed to more regulation. I just don't think it will do any good until we first reduce the size and power of multinational corporations. If we give government more regulatory power right now, the politicians and bureaucrats will just be corrupted by multinational money and they will ultimately use the power of regulation to crush smaller business, thereby assisting the multinationals in maintaining their monopoly status.

Consider Covid. Nearly every regulatory feature of it served to crush small business and expand the power and wealth of multinationals.

We need trust-busting first. Regulation next.

That's not totally out of line. The thing is, I see very little desire for people to vote for anyone that actually wants to regulate smart - whether they have good ideas or not. Bernie is about as good as it gets in terms of popularity, and there are a few Ds but not many. The Rs are a cesspool.

Here's the catch. Trust-busting is regulatory in and of itself. So if you don't trust existing politicians to enact regulations and enforce them without regulatory capture getting in the way, why would you trust those same politicians to oversee trust busting without regulatory capture getting in the way? It's very much just one kind of regulation/enforcement. Saying antitrust but no regulations is like saying apples but no fruit.

[nate33]

Right. It's the monopolies and corporate dominance that are the problem, not the government. If they've taken over the government the solution is to fix the government, not abandon it altogether. Abandoning it is precisely what corporate dominance wants. It's not like there will suddenly be no government. It will just take an entirely different form. If the people don't control what that form looks like, the money definitely will - it already is.

We might even be passed the point of no return for all I know. But if we are this discussion is entirely moot because the outcome isn't in doubt.

Honestly, I'm somewhat confused at how you come out against going after the bigger stuff rather than just opening up the gates for it all. Regulating environmental and health practices at the corporate level is also a fantastic was to repatriate production by heavily sanctioning stuff that's moved out of the country to take advantage of more lax environmental practices and such. It's also easier to manage inflation when you have a job with a better wage.

Personally, I'd also love a but of a rethink on quantitative easing. Stagflation isn't the only potential negative. When regulatory capture has all of the economic growth going to a tiny cabal and isn't factoring in environmental/social/human/health costs, stimulating economic growth at the cost of heavy spending isn't necessarily as great if a deal as it might seem.

I'm not opposed to more regulation. I just don't think it will do any good until we first reduce the size and power of multinational corporations. If we give government more regulatory power right now, the politicians and bureaucrats will just be corrupted by multinational money and they will ultimately use the power of regulation to crush smaller business, thereby assisting the multinationals in maintaining their monopoly status.

Consider Covid. Nearly every regulatory feature of it served to crush small business and expand the power and wealth of multinationals.

We need trust-busting first. Regulation next.

That's not totally out of line. The thing is, I see very little desire for people to vote for anyone that actually wants to regulate smart - whether they have good ideas or not. Bernie is about as good as it gets in terms of popularity, and there are a few Ds but not many. The Rs are a cesspool.

Here's the catch. Trust-busting is regulatory in and of itself. So if you don't trust existing politicians to enact regulations and enforce them without regulatory capture getting in the way, why would you trust those same politicians to oversee trust busting without regulatory capture getting in the way? It's very much just one kind of regulation/enforcement. Saying antitrust but no regulations is like saying apples but no fruit.

Fair point. This is why I'm pretty fatalistic on the subject. I think the only real remedy out of this would be a Rodrigo Duterte type of populist authoritarian figure rising to power. In a way, I think people thought Trump would be that guy, - someone from outside the system to come in and fix the problems. Trump was indeed from outside the system, but ultimately he was too incompetent, mostly in his ability to staff his bureaucracy with people who could actually clean the swamp. He just staffed it with the same old corrupt Republicans who are just as captured by big business as corrupt Democrats are.

[dckingsfan]

Do nothing because the "we can't trust government" mantra has worked so well for us in this pandemic, climate change and monopolization.

So remedy? Continue to do nothing? Trust no one? Trust me, you can't trust them!

Trusting the government CAUSED the pandemic. Covid exists because of government funded gain-of-function research.

Tinfoil hat alarm going of full-blast. Sorry, disinformation to justify "trust me, you can't trust them"...