By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Tempted to stay up and watch it tomorrow as I do enjoy the drama. I've had a look at the betting odds just out of interest, seems like Harris is nosing ahead?
You just posted an opinion piece from the Guardian . The only people who think that Trump is "more unstable by the hour" are his detractors. The unfortunate thing is that society has diverged so much that information is so low quality or it is a major effort to cut through the nonsense. I think you should listen to what RFK Jr has said. I've watched a few of his interviews and saw him on Rogan. The things that I took was that he was essentially a skeptic on how vaccines are tested and how companies make profits rather than doubting the efficacy of vaccines. The makers of the COVID vaccines were given carte blanche and allowed to get away with taking no liability or responsibility for inevitable vaccine-induced injuries. Find me a direct quote of him saying that vaccines in general don't work or don't help. Then I might share your concerns. There is no doubt that vaccines are injurious to some people. There are all sorts of medical scandals based on the profit incentive and the paying off officials and the marginalization of dissenting voices.
"As with nearly everything Trump says, if you take the time to look beneath the rhetoric you usually end up with either a lie or a horrible policy." Give me three specific examples if it is that common.
"It's been fairly clear that Trump supporting posters have been keen to steer any debates away from actual policies and towards feelings, narratives and false equivalence attacks on the democrats." this is just you personal feelings though isn't it?
There are a lot of areas that Democrats are not scientific and go with their feelings on issues. Just look into the gender stuff to start with.
I don't understand why people have blind trust for political parties, they are self-serving and we have to hold them to account. Don't trust the Democrats much more than you trust the Republicans.
Holy sh1t. Rationalise the convicted criminal, respective liar, goader of veterans, misogynist, etc etc
unbelievable statement, " I guarantee you that he won't try and run again for President if he wins." he'll have served his maximum 2 terms, so he can't. plus he'll be 82 and he's barely coherent now!
do you even believe the nonsense you are spouting? when all sides of the political spectrum on twtd are uniting against you, do you ever stop to think how ridiculous you're coming across?
[Post edited 4 Nov 2024 23:01]
I was responding to the comment "He's an overgrown toddler who has lost the restraint of Pence and knows his time is up in four years so will probably look to do everything he can to stay in power". You agree with me that Trump won't try to have a third term and you are saying I am spouting nonsense. People on here are calling him a dictator, I just don't agree. You are only appealing to the emotional argument that you viscerally detest Trump, you aren't saying anything to convince me of your viewpoint, do you ever stop to think how ridiculous you're coming across?
I don't think Trump is a good or moral person. A good and moral person is the ideal candidate, but they need to be more than that. In this case they just have to be better than the other candidate in terms of the effects they will have on the country and the world. I'd sleep better with Trump in charge than Harris.
I'm particularly interested in what you have to say about Vance because he seems like what Trump would be like if you were looking for a more presentable and less controversial version of Trump.
you're not interested in the views of twtd's posters as you've constantly said. you're not interested in the views of anyone who isn't fully qanon
I'm not sure you could point at either side and say that they will destroy the country, it is going to be 4 more years of Trump or 4 more years of Biden with a slight difference. You sanely can't look at the 4 years of Trump previously and come to the conclusion that he will destroy the country or turn it into Russia. He will certainly look to be involved in less wars. The thing is that the electorate have seen evidence that Trump in office is not a dictatorship and actually the economy was pretty good, so a lot of voters are heading into the election thinking that it's a rude and obnoxious man who will be good for them and their families versus a seemingly incompetent woman who will be more of the same of the failures of Biden.
He loaded trillions of debt onto the balance sheet giving tax breaks to the mega rich. Why do around 40 of the 50 or so people who served him last time say they won't this time? Your parroting of the Trump line with no filter echos your approach to Farage. 1930s Italy is calling you
I was responding to the comment "He's an overgrown toddler who has lost the restraint of Pence and knows his time is up in four years so will probably look to do everything he can to stay in power". You agree with me that Trump won't try to have a third term and you are saying I am spouting nonsense. People on here are calling him a dictator, I just don't agree. You are only appealing to the emotional argument that you viscerally detest Trump, you aren't saying anything to convince me of your viewpoint, do you ever stop to think how ridiculous you're coming across?
everyone here is in agreement except you. we're all well-read, some are tory, some are labour, we disagree on loads, but you stand alone.
Based on the fact that she was humiliated in the primaries when she ran. She just inherited he power because Biden clearly wasn't capable. If you listen to her talk for an extended time she will trip over herself and talk nonsense. She doesn't encourage confidence.
Have you seen or listened to Trump recently!!! Amazing take (again)
"I'm open to learning new information, but you have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for it."
I don't believe this to be the case otherwise you could have done what I asked which was look at my previous post on the subject where everything was linked. The fact you didn't even try shows a distinct lack of interest in the facts.
"That article was not a news article, so it was an opinion piece regardless of it might included facts."
This is utter nonsense. You've claimed it's an opinion piece and dismissed it (which it isn't) whilst also conceding that it contains facts which you haven't bothered to click on or check. I think everyone can see who has the issue here.
"So you saying that I lied is a misrepresentation at best. I won't accept a statement on someone's character without some background facts and some supporting evidence. If I have heard someone directly stating their views that is primary source. You have to remember that the political opposition always has a reason for misrepresenting the other side. If you pay attention you will notice your side doing it too. I see it happening on both sides of the American argument. I know there are a lot of people I don't trust saying that RFK Jr is vaccine denier. I'm skeptical about what he says and I don't know a whole lot about him. If you provide me evidence of things that he has directly stated then I'll look into, but I don't need to waste my time reading proof that vaccines actually work."
Lot's of words to say almost nothing. I've shown you where the evidence is but since you're unwilling to look it up from my posting history here you go:
"In 2005, he published an article titled “Deadly Immunity,” in both Rolling Stone and Salon, alleging that the mercury-based chemical thimerosal causes mercury poisoning and in turn autism, according to Vox.
There was no evidence to support Kennedy’s view and the article was retracted at Salon." [1].
This is his anti-vaccine charity [2].
Here is a summary of his various anti-vaccine positions [3].
A BBC article outlining the history of his anti-vaccine positions [4].
Honestly, there are countless articles, it's not for me to provide these ad-Infinium, it's for you to prove that he's not anti-vaccine and won't look to withdraw their use in the US.
"The concept makes sense of course. Vaccines also kill people and injure people, and anyone who says that they don't does not know what they are talking about. I'm not too concerned personally with healthcare in America because it doesn't affect me, although I do hope for the best for the American people."
I've provided direct information on how vaccines are effective both medically and economically and I've provided the links. Do me the courtesy of actually reading them before you reply with rubbish like this. You are picking out tail events and attempting to use them to justify the position of RFK Jr which you've even conceded you aren't sure about.
It's nonsensical and insulting to other posters reading the forum.
""For someone who claims not to support Trump you spend a lot of time and effort defending him and attacking the democrats." Well that's your opinion. Did I say I support Trump? You'll have to quote me saying that."
This makes no sense, did you even read my post? I've said you have claimed not to support Trump, how can I quote you on the opposite? As for the time spent defending him, it's not an opinion, if anyone could be bothered it's fairly easy to show how the majority of your posts on the subject support or defend him.
"I'm not trying to influence anyone to vote. I actually assume that no-one who can legally vote will read what I say. I'm only interested in hearing people's opinions and pushing back where I don't agree. The general point is to understand other people's views and maybe learn something."
Once again this isn't true. You're not interested in hearing other peoples opinions, when it differs from yours then the replies are designed to obfuscate or dismiss. You don't look into sources provided and you make no effort to verify information which is counter to what you believe when someone tells you where it can be found. You've made no comment on any of the articles I provided showing the medical and economic benefits of vaccines.
What you do seem to do is write long posts attempting to confuse the issue in favour of Trump.
I get your modus operandi. Just spout a lot of words talking past what I said, dump a load of homework on me to read because you have a lot of free time and wear me down. Then either misrepresent or lie about what I said and wear me down. Unfortunately, it will work on me, because it's not worth my time.
I am open to learning information, that doesn't mean that I have to read everything you tell me to then come to the exact same conclusions. Look, I'm not as invested as you and you will beat me into submission if it comes to me having to read all of your links. Then I have to research all of those sources to determine if they can be trusted. I won't trust the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph, or Wikipedia (which is ideologically curated by biased volunteers) just on what they say. They all have their own agendas.
The format was of a news article, but it provided a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, so I consider that an opinion piece. I meant to say "regardless of if it might have included facts", so I did not give an opinion on whether there were facts in there.
I'll look into your other links if or when I have the time. Posting so much puts me off it. Just go with your best one. I'm not defending RFK Jr., I don't know enough about him. I don't like your aggressive tone demanding I be on exactly the same page as you on this guy. The establishment has lost a lot of trust calling the Wuhan lab theory a conspiracy theory and lying about vaccines, stating that vaccines cause no harm ever, but that is not how medicine works. Medicine is all about being a net positive, but there is always a risk of injury or even death. Are you seriously going to say this is not true? How many medications have "may cause suicidal thoughts" and other awful side effects that would make you wonder if they are worth taking, but that is because on a small minority of cases medication, including vaccines are more harmful to certain individuals than not taking them.
"You've made no comment on any of the articles I provided showing the medical and economic benefits of vaccines." That's a lie, I told you I won't read them. I'm also not going to read articles about why the earth is round.
"As with nearly everything Trump says, if you take the time to look beneath the rhetoric you usually end up with either a lie or a horrible policy." Give me three specific examples if it is that common.
Take your pick (The Post piece is 3 years old, the rest more recent)
Sorry, I totally missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Thank you for providing links, but as far as I can see they are all fact checking pages. I know what people say about him and I am aware that he exaggerates and lies a lot. Maybe he even does it more than politicians. He also has a lot of partisans fact checking and it is very difficult to verify the fact checkers. All of these publications have proved to be very biased in their reporting. Low trust is part of the problem in that we are bombarded by lies, misrepresentations, and obfuscations from all sides. I daresay that Trump profits off that. As I said before, I am more concerned about what effect the President of the USA has on me and the world than whether I trust or respect them. I respect your view if you wouldn't vote for him based on his character, because I would like the ideal candidate, but I feel that the political system rarely rewards good people who should be leading us and I generally think that we need to vote for the least worst candidate.
I was asking about three policies you don't like from Trump.
everyone here is in agreement except you. we're all well-read, some are tory, some are labour, we disagree on loads, but you stand alone.
why is that?
It is very much an echo chamber. There are probably a few people on the forums who would agree with me that Trump is not great, but he's the least worst option, but if you witness the pile on to me holding that very centrist view like about half of Americans who just think they will be better off under one candidate than the other, then is it a wonder if they don't feel like wasting their time on pushing back? I should add that some people on here are respectfully engaging like you. I appreciate Trump is a hate figure for many and he can be quite triggering. Anyone who held my beliefs or anything stronger would not offer their opinions and certainly would not want to justify themselves to such a hostile audience. I just don't find the emotional arguments that he's bad and we all agree to be very convincing. There has been a lot of name-calling, but the only good argument on policy that anyone has mentioned is that RFK Jr should not be in charge of healthcare (and that point was made in a very aggressive manner). Hopefully he'll only be an advisor. If Trump is as bad as you say, why wouldn't he just mislead RFK Jr. and listen to him, but come to his own decisions and appoint a different health secretary? One policy that I really appreciate about Trump is that he is against engaging in wars and he is not onside with the military industrial complex. I am sure servicemen and women and their families are very supportive of this policy. Wouldn't you support the candidate who you thought was least likely to endanger your family member? I also think that Trump will be tougher on China. Hopefully Trump will also cajole European countries to take responsibility and pay for their own defense. If Trump wins, I hope I am right, and if Harris wins I hope things are much better than I fear and that you are right.
I'm open to learning new information, but you have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. That article was not a news article, so it was an opinion piece regardless of it might included facts. So you saying that I lied is a misrepresentation at best. I won't accept a statement on someone's character without some background facts and some supporting evidence. If I have heard someone directly stating their views that is primary source. You have to remember that the political opposition always has a reason for misrepresenting the other side. If you pay attention you will notice your side doing it too. I see it happening on both sides of the American argument. I know there are a lot of people I don't trust saying that RFK Jr is vaccine denier. I'm skeptical about what he says and I don't know a whole lot about him. If you provide me evidence of things that he has directly stated then I'll look into, but I don't need to waste my time reading proof that vaccines actually work. The concept makes sense of course. Vaccines also kill people and injure people, and anyone who says that they don't does not know what they are talking about. I'm not too concerned personally with healthcare in America because it doesn't affect me, although I do hope for the best for the American people. "For someone who claims not to support Trump you spend a lot of time and effort defending him and attacking the democrats." Well that's your opinion. Did I say I support Trump? You'll have to quote me saying that. I get why people don't like Trump, but I don't get why people hate him to the extent that they compare him to Hitler. It is deranged. I'm not trying to influence anyone to vote. I actually assume that no-one who can legally vote will read what I say. I'm only interested in hearing people's opinions and pushing back where I don't agree. The general point is to understand other people's views and maybe learn something.
"I'm open to learning new information.." - No you aren't
"I won't accept a statement on someone's character without some background facts and some supporting evidence." - Plenty of facts out there around both candidate's claims etc. I assume you know accept that Trumps claims around immigrants eating dogs is false?
"I know there are a lot of people I don't trust saying that RFK Jr is vaccine denier. I'm skeptical about what he says and I don't know a whole lot about him."
Perhaps educate yourself why should others educate you?
"but I don't need to waste my time reading proof that vaccines actually work. The concept makes sense of course. Vaccines also kill people and injure people,"
Contradicts your previous point. In short how many millions on millions of lives have been saved by vaccines? Most likely you would not be posting here if it wasn't for vaccines. However again go educate yourself.
'I'm only interested in hearing people's opinions and pushing back where I don't agree."
My opinions are above along with some factual leaning ones. Disagree all you like but you can't push back on facts whether you like them or not.
I was totally confident that two concurrent terms would keep the world fairly peaceful. Trump is actually very good at making deals and winning. His main motivation is his ego and that gets stroked the most by adulation and people actually thinking that he did a good job. The only concern I have about Trump in terms of foreign policy is whether he will push to get out of wars that will ultimately be damaging. He doesn't seem to care about the destruction left behind as long as his side wins, so maybe it will be great for America, but not so great for Europe. A lot of the measures against climate change are just ways of controlling people or feeling good about ourselves. We continue to follow ridiculous policies like stopping oil drilling in the North Sea so that we are carbon neutral only to import energy that we decide counts for the country exporting and not us. I think he'll surround himself with constructive people who serve his goals and still challenge him rather than people who try to hold power over him. He said that on the first day after he is elected he will be a dictator and it was a joke because when you are elected to office you get to dictate the agenda. Don't just assume the worst of the people you dislike.
Anyway, if he wins I hope I am more right, and it actually doesn't turn out to be a disaster.
My concern is that he'll get out of supporting Ukraine, but double down on backing Netanyahu and start wars with Iran and China.
He nearly started something with Iran last time (not that the death of Soleimani made me particularly unhappy).
Trump didn't have a great record for hiring competent people in his first term. Or of being happy with people who challenged and contradicted him. Few of his staff lasted very long.
I also don't see what he actually offers, other than massive tariffs to supposedly protect US industries and chucking people out of the country (some of whom have been there almost as long as his own ancestors).
I was responding to the comment "He's an overgrown toddler who has lost the restraint of Pence and knows his time is up in four years so will probably look to do everything he can to stay in power". You agree with me that Trump won't try to have a third term and you are saying I am spouting nonsense. People on here are calling him a dictator, I just don't agree. You are only appealing to the emotional argument that you viscerally detest Trump, you aren't saying anything to convince me of your viewpoint, do you ever stop to think how ridiculous you're coming across?
“get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it any more. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians.”
Combine this with countless people in his previous administration who say he's not fit for office and that he was saying he wouldn't leave as he won the election and it makes your assurance he wouldn't try and stay in power absolutely meaningless. If Republicans control both houses then god knows what he's capable of.
everyone here is in agreement except you. we're all well-read, some are tory, some are labour, we disagree on loads, but you stand alone.
why is that?
"Everyone here is in agreement except you" Doesn't seem very democratic of you to not allow someone to have a different opinion. Almost controlling I would say.
And pray, who on this thread is a Tory/Republican?
I get your modus operandi. Just spout a lot of words talking past what I said, dump a load of homework on me to read because you have a lot of free time and wear me down. Then either misrepresent or lie about what I said and wear me down. Unfortunately, it will work on me, because it's not worth my time.
I am open to learning information, that doesn't mean that I have to read everything you tell me to then come to the exact same conclusions. Look, I'm not as invested as you and you will beat me into submission if it comes to me having to read all of your links. Then I have to research all of those sources to determine if they can be trusted. I won't trust the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph, or Wikipedia (which is ideologically curated by biased volunteers) just on what they say. They all have their own agendas.
The format was of a news article, but it provided a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, so I consider that an opinion piece. I meant to say "regardless of if it might have included facts", so I did not give an opinion on whether there were facts in there.
I'll look into your other links if or when I have the time. Posting so much puts me off it. Just go with your best one. I'm not defending RFK Jr., I don't know enough about him. I don't like your aggressive tone demanding I be on exactly the same page as you on this guy. The establishment has lost a lot of trust calling the Wuhan lab theory a conspiracy theory and lying about vaccines, stating that vaccines cause no harm ever, but that is not how medicine works. Medicine is all about being a net positive, but there is always a risk of injury or even death. Are you seriously going to say this is not true? How many medications have "may cause suicidal thoughts" and other awful side effects that would make you wonder if they are worth taking, but that is because on a small minority of cases medication, including vaccines are more harmful to certain individuals than not taking them.
"You've made no comment on any of the articles I provided showing the medical and economic benefits of vaccines." That's a lie, I told you I won't read them. I'm also not going to read articles about why the earth is round.
"I get your modus operandi. Just spout a lot of words talking past what I said, dump a load of homework on me to read because you have a lot of free time and wear me down. Then either misrepresent or lie about what I said and wear me down. Unfortunately, it will work on me, because it's not worth my time."
A frankly incredible response:
- You've posted by far the most words on the subject in this and other threads. - You literally asked me to provide sources and now you're claiming it's a "homework dump". - The only person misrepresenting what was said is you.
It's impressive that you've taken the Trump playbook and applied it to debating on a forum.
"I am open to learning information, that doesn't mean that I have to read everything you tell me to then come to the exact same conclusions. Look, I'm not as invested as you and you will beat me into submission if it comes to me having to read all of your links. Then I have to research all of those sources to determine if they can be trusted. I won't trust the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph, or Wikipedia (which is ideologically curated by biased volunteers) just on what they say. They all have their own agendas."
You're not open to learning new information. You asked for sources, I provided them and you've refused to read them based on the supplier rather than the substance. Much easier to ignore them and then continue to misrepresent and lie.
"The format was of a news article, but it provided a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, so I consider that an opinion piece. I meant to say "regardless of if it might have included facts", so I did not give an opinion on whether there were facts in there."
Nonsense again. You've admitted the facts are there so why not concentrate on those and ignore the bit that you consider opinion. To ignore the entire article is cherry picking evidence.
"I'll look into your other links if or when I have the time. Posting so much puts me off it. Just go with your best one."
As previously highlighted, you've posted far more than me so this is a really weird and once again Trumpian narrative you're pushing.
"I'm not defending RFK Jr., I don't know enough about him."
Another lie. You've literally defended him and used Rogan as a source for that defence. Now you're claiming you don't know enough about him but that you're unwilling to read source material which would give you that knowledge.
"I don't like your aggressive tone demanding I be on exactly the same page as you on this guy. The establishment has lost a lot of trust calling the Wuhan lab theory a conspiracy theory and lying about vaccines, stating that vaccines cause no harm ever, but that is not how medicine works. Medicine is all about being a net positive, but there is always a risk of injury or even death. Are you seriously going to say this is not true? "
What on earth does the "Wuhan lab conspiracy" or Covid have to do with any of this? Second time you've tried to relate everything to covid when it's not true and not even the main vaccines he wants to get rid of.
As for medicine and vaccines never causing harm, the evidence is clear they are by far one of the most effective weapons we have, I posted the figures and links, no doubt you were too busy to read them even though you've posted about 15 posts in this thread since then. This is also an entirely different debate, once again you try to obfuscate and "muddy the waters".
"How many medications have "may cause suicidal thoughts" and other awful side effects that would make you wonder if they are worth taking, but that is because on a small minority of cases medication, including vaccines are more harmful to certain individuals than not taking them."
This is not really true with regards to the general case and is once again a logical fallacy - poisoning the well.
""You've made no comment on any of the articles I provided showing the medical and economic benefits of vaccines." That's a lie, I told you I won't read them. I'm also not going to read articles about why the earth is round.
You didn't say that and it's also a weird comparison - you clearly believe the world is round and thus if you don't need to read these articles you must believe that vaccines both work and are a economic plus yet the rest of your posts disagree with this view.
Your posts are not internally consistent and contain numerous well-known logical fallacies designed to obfuscate.
I'll not be wasting any more time on you, it's pointless.
Sorry, I totally missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Thank you for providing links, but as far as I can see they are all fact checking pages. I know what people say about him and I am aware that he exaggerates and lies a lot. Maybe he even does it more than politicians. He also has a lot of partisans fact checking and it is very difficult to verify the fact checkers. All of these publications have proved to be very biased in their reporting. Low trust is part of the problem in that we are bombarded by lies, misrepresentations, and obfuscations from all sides. I daresay that Trump profits off that. As I said before, I am more concerned about what effect the President of the USA has on me and the world than whether I trust or respect them. I respect your view if you wouldn't vote for him based on his character, because I would like the ideal candidate, but I feel that the political system rarely rewards good people who should be leading us and I generally think that we need to vote for the least worst candidate.
I was asking about three policies you don't like from Trump.
Sorry but I if you're taking the "All of these publications have proved to be very biased in their reporting" line I'm going to have to ask you, as you have asked others, for citations.
You just posted an opinion piece from the Guardian . The only people who think that Trump is "more unstable by the hour" are his detractors. The unfortunate thing is that society has diverged so much that information is so low quality or it is a major effort to cut through the nonsense. I think you should listen to what RFK Jr has said. I've watched a few of his interviews and saw him on Rogan. The things that I took was that he was essentially a skeptic on how vaccines are tested and how companies make profits rather than doubting the efficacy of vaccines. The makers of the COVID vaccines were given carte blanche and allowed to get away with taking no liability or responsibility for inevitable vaccine-induced injuries. Find me a direct quote of him saying that vaccines in general don't work or don't help. Then I might share your concerns. There is no doubt that vaccines are injurious to some people. There are all sorts of medical scandals based on the profit incentive and the paying off officials and the marginalization of dissenting voices.
"As with nearly everything Trump says, if you take the time to look beneath the rhetoric you usually end up with either a lie or a horrible policy." Give me three specific examples if it is that common.
"It's been fairly clear that Trump supporting posters have been keen to steer any debates away from actual policies and towards feelings, narratives and false equivalence attacks on the democrats." this is just you personal feelings though isn't it?
There are a lot of areas that Democrats are not scientific and go with their feelings on issues. Just look into the gender stuff to start with.
I don't understand why people have blind trust for political parties, they are self-serving and we have to hold them to account. Don't trust the Democrats much more than you trust the Republicans.
'Find me a direct quote of him saying that vaccines in general don't work or don't help'
I'll have a look later for you, but at the moment I'm still too busy trying to work out whether the bleach injection or the magic lights are the better option for this winter.
"I get your modus operandi. Just spout a lot of words talking past what I said, dump a load of homework on me to read because you have a lot of free time and wear me down. Then either misrepresent or lie about what I said and wear me down. Unfortunately, it will work on me, because it's not worth my time."
A frankly incredible response:
- You've posted by far the most words on the subject in this and other threads. - You literally asked me to provide sources and now you're claiming it's a "homework dump". - The only person misrepresenting what was said is you.
It's impressive that you've taken the Trump playbook and applied it to debating on a forum.
"I am open to learning information, that doesn't mean that I have to read everything you tell me to then come to the exact same conclusions. Look, I'm not as invested as you and you will beat me into submission if it comes to me having to read all of your links. Then I have to research all of those sources to determine if they can be trusted. I won't trust the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph, or Wikipedia (which is ideologically curated by biased volunteers) just on what they say. They all have their own agendas."
You're not open to learning new information. You asked for sources, I provided them and you've refused to read them based on the supplier rather than the substance. Much easier to ignore them and then continue to misrepresent and lie.
"The format was of a news article, but it provided a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, so I consider that an opinion piece. I meant to say "regardless of if it might have included facts", so I did not give an opinion on whether there were facts in there."
Nonsense again. You've admitted the facts are there so why not concentrate on those and ignore the bit that you consider opinion. To ignore the entire article is cherry picking evidence.
"I'll look into your other links if or when I have the time. Posting so much puts me off it. Just go with your best one."
As previously highlighted, you've posted far more than me so this is a really weird and once again Trumpian narrative you're pushing.
"I'm not defending RFK Jr., I don't know enough about him."
Another lie. You've literally defended him and used Rogan as a source for that defence. Now you're claiming you don't know enough about him but that you're unwilling to read source material which would give you that knowledge.
"I don't like your aggressive tone demanding I be on exactly the same page as you on this guy. The establishment has lost a lot of trust calling the Wuhan lab theory a conspiracy theory and lying about vaccines, stating that vaccines cause no harm ever, but that is not how medicine works. Medicine is all about being a net positive, but there is always a risk of injury or even death. Are you seriously going to say this is not true? "
What on earth does the "Wuhan lab conspiracy" or Covid have to do with any of this? Second time you've tried to relate everything to covid when it's not true and not even the main vaccines he wants to get rid of.
As for medicine and vaccines never causing harm, the evidence is clear they are by far one of the most effective weapons we have, I posted the figures and links, no doubt you were too busy to read them even though you've posted about 15 posts in this thread since then. This is also an entirely different debate, once again you try to obfuscate and "muddy the waters".
"How many medications have "may cause suicidal thoughts" and other awful side effects that would make you wonder if they are worth taking, but that is because on a small minority of cases medication, including vaccines are more harmful to certain individuals than not taking them."
This is not really true with regards to the general case and is once again a logical fallacy - poisoning the well.
""You've made no comment on any of the articles I provided showing the medical and economic benefits of vaccines." That's a lie, I told you I won't read them. I'm also not going to read articles about why the earth is round.
You didn't say that and it's also a weird comparison - you clearly believe the world is round and thus if you don't need to read these articles you must believe that vaccines both work and are a economic plus yet the rest of your posts disagree with this view.
Your posts are not internally consistent and contain numerous well-known logical fallacies designed to obfuscate.
I'll not be wasting any more time on you, it's pointless.
'Find me a direct quote of him saying that vaccines in general don't work or don't help'
I'll have a look later for you, but at the moment I'm still too busy trying to work out whether the bleach injection or the magic lights are the better option for this winter.
Bleach and magic lights but no eating other peoples pets!
'Find me a direct quote of him saying that vaccines in general don't work or don't help'
I'll have a look later for you, but at the moment I'm still too busy trying to work out whether the bleach injection or the magic lights are the better option for this winter.
There is a quote of him saying "There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective", it's about as close as you're going to get.
But these people aren't stupid; they whine about wanting "good science" without knowing what they are talking about but continue to dog whistle so they can claim the above, that they've never said they are anti-vaccine because they don't explicitly say it even though they seem to spend a very large amount of time only criticising them.
Then there is stuff like this
Some classic AIDS denial.
Here is another quote:
Kennedy then claimed that “the medical research on these diseases and vaccine research has actually created some of the worst plagues in our history. Anybody who reads The River will come away pretty much convinced that HIV also came from a vaccine program, there’s plenty of evidence on that as well.”
And then
“I do not believe that infectious disease is an enormous threat to human health,”
'Find me a direct quote of him saying that vaccines in general don't work or don't help'
I'll have a look later for you, but at the moment I'm still too busy trying to work out whether the bleach injection or the magic lights are the better option for this winter.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
