But who did that? I have looked it up and found nothing. Please back up your claim.
1 Like
That’s a terrible take. If Clinton was president during the pandemic there wouldnt have been a politicization of the FDA, CDC, and HHS so we wouldnt have had to think about the development and possible approval of the vaccine in this way.
During its development, no main stream Dem politician was ever anti vax. They were, as was the rational position given Trump’s presidency, incredibly skeptical of Trump and the lackeys he had at the heads of the agencies responsible for approving the vax who throughout the whole of pandemic were undercutting the actual scientists and experts in their agencies. Given Trump was publicly pushing for early approval to get it out before the election, the line was always “don’t listen to Trump, but listen to the scientists.” That is an attempt to depoliticize the situation.
What most on the the right have done since the Vax was available is to at best give lip service to taking it, but doing so in the context of demeaning the experts pushing the message of how important it is. Furthermore, pushing a “personal choice” on an issue of public health completely misses the point and further undermines any message about the importance of getting the shot.
Fuck, De Santis recently released a line of merch mocking Fauci and public health measures. A fucking governor, a supposed front runner for the presidential nomination for the GOP selling beer coozies saying How can I drink beer if I’m wearing a mask.
4 Likes
Urgh, change that to China and I would fully agree with you. I’m putting this thread on ignore again, enough frustration for me. Your “above post, not you” come across as a left wing radical nutcase. Sort of the opposite of qanon conspiracy theories.
Hometown is a loveable left wing nutcase no doubt, but he has a point. Your arguments would be much more persuasive if you’d back them up with some kind of evidence.
1 Like
Don’t know how anyone could defend it anywhere to be honest. That’s what I simply don’t understand. It’s about saving lives but these people the world over spout anti vaccine, anti mask, ant this, anti that and anti whatever else is going against science and even basic common sense.
Why? I honestly don’t get it.
In the space of one conversation elsewhere, I’ve been called a socialist and fascist. Couldn’t make it up.
7 Likes
People are fuckwits.
2 Likes
1 Like
I believe Laura Ingraham labelled them all actors. It’s astonishing the lengths the far-right goes to just to maintain their own horrid little view of the world. There is no truth, there is only the storyline.
4 Likes
The politically expedient lying I can deal with. It’s disgusting that issues like this are still not out of bounds for stuff like this, but this is what I have come to expect from them. What bothers me so much though is the incoherence of it.
- It was no big deal. No worse than the BLM protests in the summer
- Yeah, it was awful but it was ANTIFA
- It looked bad, but it was justified because they’re patriots
- Yeah it was awful, but it was Pelosi’s fault for not organizing the capital police better
3 Likes
Everyone should watch the short video clip inside the article. Anyone who defends these quasi-intellectual propaganda swines should be shunned and condemned until they repent. Beyond obscene.
1 Like
Important context is the Bullwark is a “conservative” publication run by traditional Bush republicans.
1 Like
I know but isn’t the subject matter and what is actually written in Charlie Sykes article what is important ? I dont find the it important to note that they are conservatives other than note that they are actually principled conservatives and therefore a very valid source. And since they are principled, I read them and find a lot of their articles intellectually stimulating (actually almost prefer it to reading sources from my own political camp as I already have that perspective and so will learn little from it).
They belive in facts and not the alternative Trumpian reality and that is good enough.
So yeah, I do disagree that It is important to note that they are Bush/Reagan Republicans personally and would privately assume that anyone who reads them will understand where on the political spectrum they are, making such notes unecessary in my view
If a source is factual it is valid imo 
I think his point was that it is interesting to note that this is criticism of the right coming from the right.
6 Likes
Ah, I misunderstood and just thought Limie didn’t approve of my source. Sorry for the confusion @Limiescouse 
And yes, Limiescouse, maybe you are right that I should have mentioned the political allignment. I just didn’t think about it or thought it necessary at the time. But now you have mentioned it so all good I suppose.
1 Like
I think they’re talking about DeSantis and Abbott.
Chris Hayes went ‘all in’ on this story this week.
Pretty fucking scary, tbh.
Its a great example of the challenge Trump poses to our psychology. We’re so primed to think that criminality has to be done secret that when he does it out in the open we end up gaslighting ourselves into thinking it HAS to be something else. Then when the secret documents are revealed that prove it we again dont react because it isnt new - we already saw with out eyes. Again we gaslight ourselves and assume that it must have already been dealt with.
4 Likes
