|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 30 2021 05:16 Doublemint wrote:some great news again for the economy, the latest numbers. I as a European approve of the US jumpstarting the train that moves us all forward. Consumer-fueled economy pushes GDP to 6.4% first-quarter gainShow nested quote +Economic activity boomed to start 2021, as widespread vaccinations and more fuel from government spending helped get the U.S. closer to where it was before the Covid-19 pandemic struck, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.
Gross domestic product, the sum of all goods and services produced in the economy, jumped 6.4% for the first three months of the year on an annualized basis. Outside of the reopening-fueled third-quarter surge last year, it was the best period for GDP since the third quarter of 2003.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for a 6.5% increase. Q4 of 2020 accelerated at a 4.3% pace.
“This signals the economy is off and running and it will be a boom-like year,” said Mark Zandi chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Obviously, the American consumer is powering the train and businesses are investing strongly.”
In a separate report Thursday, the Labor Department said initial jobless claims fell to a pandemic-era low last week, but the number was higher than expected. outlook is really, really good. "job creators" need to pay more to get the people doing the actual work as demand is high. although inflation is going to surge as well. let's see who is flinching first/what is happening first.
That's great news! If we can keep the stimulus money rolling in, there's no limit to how long this economic growth can go on.
|
On April 30 2021 04:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 23:08 Artisreal wrote:On April 29 2021 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. No, it isn't. I don't know why it seems like people here have to reject obviously true statements. We have to argue on what the word pause means now? What's your interpretation of "we recommend pausing the use of the J&J vaccine" if it doesn't mean to stop administering/receiving the J&J vaccine for some period of time?
There's a fundamental difference in reasoning why the vaccination is to be stopped.
To talk about the meaning of the word pause is meaningless in this context.
Elaborating a bit more:
One side wants to stop vaccination entirely because they are dumb.
The other side wants to stop vaccination because the precautionary principle dictates such until the question whether it is safe is answered.
How these two are even remotely comparable is absolutely beyond my wildest imagination.
|
On April 30 2021 05:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
The issue is what you're insinuating, which is why people are arguing over semantics. Pausing something to be extra careful isn't the same as banning that activity. It' just a temporary pause. Suggesting, rather thinly, that it means the vaccine
is unsafe and dining indoors is banned is not good faith. It's fear mongering and feeding conspiracies. In line with JC's comment, if the government said "don't use this specific medicine/surgery method as it's effectiveness is still under review" it isn't saying it won't be available later on, it's just erring on the side of caution. It isn't telling you what you are allowed to do, it is giving guidance. It isn't restricting free speech for people who fear monger, it is simply advising you that a certain course of action may not be wise at this moment and further action/oversight/study is required.
My good sir, you're obviously jumping into the discussion out of context so let me reiterate it for you.
Someone said that saying "don't take the vaccine" is the quote "wrong opinion" and it should not be legitimized on the internet.
Then I said, if you want to purge the internet of this idea that you shouldn't take the vaccine because it's the "wrong opinion" then you have to come to the terms with the fact that the FDA and CDC temporarily said to not take the J&J vaccine while its safety was being investigated. Then the opinion that you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine becomes a legitimate opinion until the investigation is finished. So are you going to un-delete all the internet posts about not taking the vaccine? Then after the investigation is over and it once again becomes the "wrong opinion" to oppose the J&J vaccine do we re-delete all the posts we un-deleted? Just a never-ending cycle of un-deleting and re-deleting posts as the "truth" constantly changes as new information comes in?
Anyone with common sense can see how this idea implodes on itself. There's no way around this so people here have just resorted to twisting themselves into knots and trying to use semantics to insist that the FDA and CDC never said to temporarily stop taking the J&J vaccine. It's really quite unpleasant to witness this.
|
It's an argument about free speech on the internet that people are obviously trying to turn into a "pro-vax vs anti-vax" argument for one obvious reason: It's really easy to beat down an anti-vaxxers argument.
I got my COVID vaccine in December, mere days after the FDA approved its use. I don't need to be lectured about how I'm insinuating vaccines aren't safe.
|
United States42008 Posts
It is precisely because of extensive research, testing, and erring on the side of caution that we’re able to assert that the vaccines we receive are safe. It is not an article of faith, it is an earned reward. The pausing of a specific vaccine until more research is done does not imply vaccines are unsafe, it implies that the vaccines we get are safe. If big pharma were running an unsafe experimental vaccine conspiracy the government wouldn’t be pausing their vaccine rollouts.
Imagine two towns. In one town restaurants regularly get cited for code violations and closed until they fix their issues. In the other restaurants never get closed. I feel better about eating in the first town.
|
|
|
JimmiC, I'm not sure why you think my posts are different there. I stand by either one of them.
On April 15 if you asked the FDA/CDC if you should take the Johnson and Johnson vaccine the answer is "no."
Sure, I didn't say "no, because they are temporarily suspended while we complete an investigation blah blah blah."
But I also didn't say "no, because they cause autism 5g microchips blah blah blah."
Just because I didn't spell out the former doesn't mean you get to assume that I'm insinuating the latter. You can have whatever arguments in your head with whatever fictitious anti-vaxxers you want. Literally the first sentence of that post I state that I'm making a free speech argument and not an anti-vax argument.
|
|
|
they absolutely never said you should not take it. pausing its rollout to do more research is simply not the same thing. the answer in your hypothetical question was not no. it was ‘we won’t give it to you until further research.’ you’re insinuating something whether you like it or not, because what you’re saying isn’t what the government, J&J, or anyone ‘with common sense’ is saying.
as others have said, if you see anything where the government says do not take this vaccine, link it.
show me the tv or gtfo. any government source saying ‘do not take this vaccine’ will be the TV here. i want those words.
|
On April 30 2021 07:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:
JimmiC, I'm not sure why you think my posts are different there. I stand by either one of them.
On April 15 if you asked the FDA/CDC if you should take the Johnson and Johnson vaccine the answer is "no."
Sure, I didn't say "no, because they are temporarily suspended while we complete an investigation blah blah blah."
But I also didn't say "no, because they cause autism 5g microchips blah blah blah."
Just because I didn't spell out the former doesn't mean you get to assume that I'm insinuating the latter. You can have whatever arguments in your head with whatever fictitious anti-vaxxers you want. They would not say no, they would say "paused temporarily, because that is what they did, they would also go on to say that if you had taken it you were safe because the event was 7 out of a million (not deaths) and just to be aware of these symptoms for 15 days. I know you stand behind it, you stood behind that I was dumb to think American deaths would rise for another month after daily cases dropped because active cases were still rising, you insulted me and so on. Then a month later after the previous months record was broken and unsurprisingly the data was right and not your wisdom you said nothing, he'll you probably still stand behind it. I'm sorry that you can't see the vast difference between "no" and "temporarily paused out of abundance of caution". Luckily any regulator could, hell an automated system could, it could even check the dates of the post. If someone went to a store and the door was locked and someone asked is this store closed and the person said yes, and then some one corrected them and said "it's temporarily closed while the guy is at lunch". Would you really say , "Why did he correct him it was closed!"?
Lol JimmiC, I think what you said here really requires a lot of audacity. I'm going to spoiler my reply because you're starting to bring up off-topic stuff that'll derail the thread (even though this thread kind of just flows where the conversation brings it.)
+ Show Spoiler +I do remember what you said in January that COVID is going to get worse over the Winter: On January 20 2021 13:08 JimmiC wrote:
It is getting so bad in the US, I'm surprised it is not talked about any more. It is now the number 1 killer in the US, more than heart disease and cancer. They are talking about 10% of people who caught it having long covid and who knows that impact. That is like 3-4 million Americans.
And it us likely to get worse over the winter, 100k deaths in just 5 weeks when it took almost all of 2020 to get to 300k.
Of course I replied that I thought it was peaking and likely to get better over the winter and we argued back and forth. Here's what the data has shown since then. I've highlighted over January 20 when you made that post to mark a reference point. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CttMlFw.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ibkyXfH.jpg) You literally could not have been more wrong. You basically chose the exact week it peaked to predict that things were going to get worse. Now I could have returned to that thread months later and bragged about how I had correctly predicted the peak on the week it was happening and given you an "I told you so" but I chose to be the bigger man and not do that. The fact that you have the audacity to bring it up and act like you were right even though this data could not be any easier to interpret is nothing short of remarkable.
|
On April 30 2021 08:02 brian wrote:
they absolutely never said you should not take it. pausing its rollout to do more research is simply not the same thing. the answer in your hypothetical question was not no. it was ‘we won’t give it to you until further research.’ you’re insinuating something whether you like it or not, because what you’re saying isn’t what the government, J&J, or anyone ‘with common sense’ is saying.
as others have said, if you see anything where the government says do not take this vaccine, link it.
show me the tv or gtfo. any government source saying ‘do not take this vaccine’ will be the TV here. i want those words.
Does "don't take it" sound more nefarious than "we won't give it to you?" If I'm an anti-vaxxer I would say the latter sounds even worse. Then I could say, "This is shit is so dangerous they won't even let people administer it" or some other nonsense.
But sure, whatever way you want to say it. I don't really care because it's not crucial to my argument. There's no applicable difference between "We are recommending to temporarily stop administering this vaccine" and "We are recommending to temporarily stop receiving this vaccine" unless you think there are people with bootleg J&J vaccines they can self-administer. So phrase it whichever way makes you happiest if you think one way has some sinister insinuations that the other doesn't.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 09:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 08:02 brian wrote:
they absolutely never said you should not take it. pausing its rollout to do more research is simply not the same thing. the answer in your hypothetical question was not no. it was ‘we won’t give it to you until further research.’ you’re insinuating something whether you like it or not, because what you’re saying isn’t what the government, J&J, or anyone ‘with common sense’ is saying.
as others have said, if you see anything where the government says do not take this vaccine, link it.
show me the tv or gtfo. any government source saying ‘do not take this vaccine’ will be the TV here. i want those words. Does "don't take it" sound more nefarious than "we won't give it to you?" If I'm an anti-vaxxer I would say the latter sounds even worse. Then I could say, "This is shit is so dangerous they won't even let people administer it" or some other nonsense. But sure, whatever way you want to say it. I don't really care because it's not crucial to my argument. There's no applicable difference between "We are recommending to temporarily stop administering this vaccine" and "We are recommending to temporarily stop receiving this vaccine" unless you think there are people with bootleg J&J vaccines they can self-administer. So phrase it whichever way makes you happiest if you think one way has some sinister insinuations that the other doesn't.
I just want to stop you after however many pages now and ask what your point is then? To win a created argument on technical semantics? To lend legitimacy to anti-vaxxers? You literally point to J&J pausing their vaccines to ensure safety as an argument that we're not supposed to think they're safe. Or maybe you're not technically saying that, but just leading people into thinking it with the way you're nitpicking everything, but then you do all this "that's not what I'm saying" crap and detach from any statement you might've been making. If you're going to rail against my statement for several pages then you need to do that with arguments that are better than this half-baked "gotcha I win" shit. It's also annoying to read.
If folks can get vaccinated, they should. End of discussion. They do otherwise at their own peril.
|
|
|
If someone doesn't want to be misconstrued as an anti-vaxxer, in my humble opinion, a great way to do that is not to start a several pages-long shitfest argument with anybody expressing pro-vaccination statements. You can't go "I didn't literally say I'm an anti-vaxxer", when the meta-rhetoric you engage in is literally exactly in line with an anti-vaxxer. People here generally aren't that stupid.
|
I reiterated my argument on the 3rd post of this page. Which part of it is confusing to you and which part sounds anti-vax to you?
|
On April 30 2021 13:35 BlackJack wrote:
I reiterated my argument on the 3rd post of this page. Which part of it is confusing to you and which part sounds anti-vax to you?
The part where you nitpick everyone's posts for several pages when they say anything remotely pro-vaccine? A White Supremacist doesn't need to be caught wearing the white hood to be a racist. When you spend all your energy giving people shit and going "well actually" when they try to argue for vaccination, there might be a reason for that.
Also, I'm not re-reading your posts again. I don't have time for that shit. Make yourself clear, that's not my job.
For instance, I make my stance very clear: everyone should be vaccinated, as soon as possible. If someone has the opportunity to get vaccinated, they should take it. I did. This is the third time I've iterated this position. There is no confusion or arguing with people about what my position is, because I'm not doing anything to obfuscate what my position is. Your turn.
|
Biden saying he has the trans community's back and then doing literally nothing to help us as state after state target us with legislation is simultaneously infuriating and depressing.
|
Jesus. I'm the one nitpicking?
Here's the post that started the whole line of discussion:
On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines.
Notice how I said IF IT WAS THE LATTER? Because I have no issue if it's the former. If you want to give a random pro-vaccine spiel in the middle of this thread for whatever reason then fine. But if you're talking about censoring so-called "wrong opinions" on the internet then I have a huge problem with that because it's a dumb idea.
What followed was 3 pages of people nitpicking my verbiage in that post
|
Because your argument is reductive and idiotic? You wonder why people took issue with that argument? Goodness.
Let me spell it out. It is wrong to think one should not get vaccinated. I'm saying that again. If everyone was saying "it's wrong to get the J&J vaccine while it's on pause because of distribution issues, but other vaccines are fine and you should take them", we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you know that's not what people are saying. Yet you equate the two and force people to argue against how stupid that sounds. That is not other people nitpicking you, that's you starting and perpetuating an argument founded in nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
