Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Negatory

  1. Okay. Way ahead of you here. Economic: They achieved multiple milestones from the 80s to present day ahead of schedule. They have delivered on promises to virtually eliminate poverty and increase the quality of life of their society. You said that we don't have to do anything to beat China economically except wait. I think a lot of other countries think that about the US. We are not closing our debt gap and we are not becoming more competitive (except in niche areas in tech). Also, our middle class is shrinking while theirs is growing. As one example of international competitiveness, Tesla is getting F'd because they can realistically only compete with the 15 other Chinese EV makers in a tariff environment like the US, where we make it cost 25% more for them to deliver. In Asia, the EU, and everywhere else, American industry is becoming less competitive. As another example, we lost the Chip War for microelectronic chips in the 70s through the 2000s. We literally only have Micron, which produces RAM, because we were not competitive with other countries. Military: They have achieved multiple milestones from the 90s to today. They are set to deliver on future milestones that challenge US dominance. They also don't have to maintain an empire, they get to operate in an A2AD environment or within the bounds of close asia environments to achieve their goals. I'm good not talking about specifics here, but I am sure you'd rather us not go to war in an away game with China and understand how it wouldn't be a good thing for us. Also, good luck closing the Strait of Malacca and just chillin. First, doing that militarily is not trivial especially with anti ship systems the Chinese have. And we live in a glass house too, you know? Don't think our society or economy would like it very much either. Diplomatic: They are actively shifting the tide of public perception in ASEAN, Europe, and Africa. Just this year, perceptions have shifted, unfortunately not in our favor, with, for the first time ever, most ASEAN countries saying that they would choose to align with China over the US if forced to choose. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/us-loses-its-spot-to-china-as-southeast-asias-most-favored-ally-survey-finds.html Information: They control the information narrative in China. We control very little here. This is unarguably an advantage for a great power competition. https://freedomhouse.org/report/beijing-global-media-influence/2022/authoritarian-expansion-power-democratic-resilience Pay: https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/global_labor_rates_china_is_no_longer_a_low_cost_country You'll like that because the title supports your point that China isn't a low cost country. But then the data inside shows that managers in the US are paid 6 times as much as managers in China, and it shows that they do production for $12,000 a year. They say US machine workers will work for $33,000 but give me a fucking break. Not a chance. You know literally no skilled blue collar worker that would accept less than $60k a year. There is no realistic factory lifestyle young people can go do. Here's another one for you to look at, again, biased to the US because it was created by us: https://reshoringinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GlobalLaborRateComparisons.pdf I'd love to see a non-biased, non US produced (without a political agenda), source that shows that wages are near parity. You aren't gonna be able to find it. I'm not going to argue that there are cheaper places like Mexico we can exploit. Great, let's go do it. But they can do that too (what is stopping China from finding a country like Mexico for these types of tasks?), and their population doesn't need their decadent wages to stay happy. We are still at a wholesale disadvantage. And if you want to talk about military, nationalizing defense companies turns out is getting to be pretty fucking effective. Try to argue with me that Lockheed and Boeing are better than their companies. I will have to disagree from a cost effectiveness perspective and a time perspective. There are many estimates that their $200-300B they spend a year goes significantly farther than the $800B we spend a year. And they have been able to develop truly disruptive capabilities like hypersonic missiles and other assassin's mace weapons because they don't have to get 50 senators to agree to cancel an outdated weapons systems concept like the Carrier. https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/china-isnt-just-spending-more-its-spending-smarter https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128 Remind me what hasn't followed plan again? Demographics: This is our one point of potential advantage. But this isn't going to happen for decades, and if they can keep their population mentally prepared to work by identifying the problem early and banding together (their society is infinitely more collectivist than our individualist society), they actually have a chance to emerge victorious. And for us to maintain our advantage here, we have to accept significant immigration to bolster our deadening birth rates. While Hispanic and minority birth rates and population growth make up a huge portion of our young demographics, we are currently becoming more isolationist and closed-borders. Yeah, and they have an inherent anchoring bias. Ray Dalio paints a picture that the US is on the decline - not that China will long-term supplant the US. He says it's likely that China will supplant us in the short term, but he doesn't really talk about the longevity of their empire other than to promise us that, one day, they too will fail. That is the argument. I am fine with believing that China can only momentarily usurp us, if at all, especially due to demographic issues. But then someone else will take over. It won't be us. Again, I ask, has an empire beat the long term cycle? Why will we be able to sustain power forever?
  2. Estate tax is levied on net assets. Passing the $2000 of stock and $1000 loan on your assets to an heir would be taxed the same as passing $1000 to an heir. So the capital gains that were "borrowed" don't get hit by the estate tax either. Then, once the heir gains the assets, their basis resets. Plus, regardless, it entirely negates the tax during the life of the individual. Estate taxes exist no matter what. Income and/or capital gains are supposed to exist before said person dies. Additionally, even if you don't believe that this is possible and they will be hit by some tax at some point, you seem to agree that they can defer taxes. There is always a benefit to paying taxes later in the time value of money.
  3. Pretty fucking good? Best economy in history? One of the greatest increases in QoL ever seen in history? You mad you have to pay $50k of taxes on your $200k salary so that you can still take home more than 99% of the rest of the world? Also, good luck funding the Manhattan project or global military without an income tax. If you want to go back to pre-1913 US, I hope you're equally ready to experience the significantly lower quality of life that comes with not having a funded government or military that can wield national power. Frontier living wasn't that sweet. Double edged sword here (regressive policy) that hurts the working class more. Billionaires need low interest loans to keep wealth they don't need. Workers need it to purchase essentials like housing, transportation, and food. Raise the interest rates and the only people that actually may starve are poor people. Sure it does. Want to talk about ethical frameworks? From a utilitarian approach, it is beneficial to the group (society) and only marginally affects people who are entirely way too well-off, therefore it is most likely in the best interest for the largest number of people. There's an ethical argument. From a common good approach, it seems to make sense that people with means that are significantly greater than others should contribute to their fellow citizens. There's an ethical argument. Now you can argue that it is unethical from your point of view or from a specific framework. But in the end it's all just feelings. That's ethics. Ethical arguments do not have to take into account second and third order consequences, but I would love to talk to some of them if you'd like. I will point out that your statement about Democratic legislation also can easily be applied to Republican legislation - it's a useless statement with no evidence or warrant. But you always throw some baseless point in your arguments about the dems being the problem (with essentially no proof or evidence). If you are saying the US government, as in the federal government that has existed since the 1930s, is ineffective, then I agree and disagree. If you are saying that this is a Biden problem, I'll disagree. I do agree that you have to lock your currency to something that doesn't let the government devalue it. But once you've left, you can't go back. Have you seen the government operate even on a CR where they don't get their 3% increase? The Air Force modernization folks damn near shut down. If you lock the currency now, you are effectively stating that you will significantly curtail spending in every single government expenditure for the next 50+ years. Which, sure, might be necessary, but not if you want to maintain the quality of life you have or the benefits of the American empire. The natural progression of fixed currencies to fiat systems has been seen for millennia in countless societies from the Romans to the Chinese to the Dutch to the British to, now, us. While you are correct that it is partially driven by the ultra-wealthy, it is also driven by populist governments and the middle class and working class demanding their lives be improved. When you run out of real growth, you have to create it with Fiat. So you as the government decouple and you pump money into the system to continue the growth. There is literally no stopping this in the natural cycle of nations. Show me one example. Obama did quantitative easing. Trump did a shitload of quantitative easing. Biden is actually tightening, which is a laudable act, but there's still $7T on the balance sheet. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm It's the old saying hard times strong men, strong men easy times, easy times weak men, blah blah blah. Well we are in the weak men times. And you are the weak men. And I am a weak man. I EXPECT to be paid $250k a year for a job that lets me telework part time. It's actually absurd. But I expect to be paid that because my fellow countrymen have equally ridiculous expectations. I can't get fast food now without paying $15. This is a positive feedback cycle that cannot be fixed in a pretty way. You either have the country explode into revolution to do what you said, or you choose slow relegation to a shit economy like the UK has been seeing the past 50 years. No, it's not. You don't understand stepped up basis. This is what is done. 1) Buy: buy an asset and have it appreciate. Say you spend $1000 on a stock and it is now worth $2000. This is $1000 in capital gains 2) Borrow: instead of selling $1000 of stock and paying capital gains tax on $1000, pledge $1000 of stock as collateral for a loan of $1000 that you can spend as you see fit 3) Die: keep holding the stock and loan until you die. Your heir can sell the stock for $2000 with no capital gains due to step-up basis rules. Look at this rule, this is what you don't understand, and I didn't understand for a long time. Using the new basis, pay off your $1000 loan, and have $1000 leftover in cash (the original value of the stock) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stepped-up_basis Stepped up basis allows inheritors of a stock to change the basis to the value at the time a person inherits it rather than the value of it when it was originally purchased. No capital gains are paid on inherited stock. You have spent $1000 on a stock, used $1000 of the gains to buy stuff with, and passed the original $1000 to your descendants without ever paying taxes on those gains in your lifetime. They happily go into your estate intact and with no capital gains tax due.
  4. What evidence is there that a nation can ever defeat the cyclical pattern of natural rise and decline of great powers? How will our economy, whose workers demand to be paid 3-5 times as much as an equivalent Chinese person, remain competitive? How will we deal with wealth inequality again? You guys want the nice solution of what FDR did for America in the 30s, or do you want the more likely solution resembling the French guillotine? Oh, right, no one wants either. Well history says it’s between those if you want change. You can’t fight and defeat China forever, so it’s probably advantageous to not destroy our blood and treasure in trying to stop them from harnessing their natural advantages of population, wages, and national unity that we just don’t have. Why not acclimatize to the idea that a multipolar world is an eventuality, and we only get to prolong what we have if we don’t destroy it all in a war? If we’re spending 4-5 times as much on the military as China is and not able to impact them effectively, there is no winning move. We overextended. We got too comfortable. We allowed the rich to take too much. 122% debt to GDP, $1.8T deficit, $34T debt. The dollar will cease to be the reserve currency within our life times. Only way out is for the American people to simultaneously stop infighting, accept a significant cut to current QoL (think ~40-50% reduction in salary expectation), and to gut any gov spending that doesn’t provide ROI. We can’t do that. We can barely even have a civil discussion between military officers about politics when they disagree. That’s pragmatism.
  5. The US gov already does tax unrealized gains with home valuations and property taxes. Is that unconstitutional or unethical? What do you guys propose to do about the ultra wealthy who never cash in equity and take cash loans on their unrealized net worth? It is clearly tax evasion that is harmful to the US gov and not in line with the intent of the tax system. Also, I hope you are being honest brokers in this debate and are aware that the changes only apply to net worths >$100M. It is likely literally never going to directly impact any of you, the middle class, the upper professional class, or anyone in your family. It is aimed at only the ultra wealthy. Not to mention, the proposal makes these taxes prepayments for future gains. If they have future realized gains, they get to deduct previous payments. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/ Now explain: - How is this bad for the working class (my definition includes everyone from McDonalds to Anesthesiologists making $1M a year). People that have to work to live. - What are the negatives to the economy? You won’t get trickled down on? - What is your solution? If you don’t have a solution, why is the current state better morally or ethically?
  6. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/cia-and-committee-free-asia-under-project-dtpillar Interesting how Americans don’t get taught about these things. Still operating by the way.
  7. This is the actual end of the thread. We're addressing the argument that evangelicals voted for Trump, right? You're saying that it's made up. Embrace the facts homie. White evangelical protestants voted republican 6 times more often than they voted democrat. Catholics 5 to 4. LDS 3 to 1. Do you want more evidence of this stupid ass claim that you are denying for no reason? By the way, these are rational, cogent arguments based on data, so stop with the BS about the connection being "tenuous at best" and inappropriate in "rational debate." You're making yourself look intentionally obtuse. Also, you CAN very easily say that democrats support BLM. That is backed by data. In 2023, 84% of dems support it. Only 17% of republicans do. What is wrong with you saying this? This is a RATIONAL argument. Doubt. Here i'll respond to this appeal to emotion right here! I hope this atones for "our" sins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance Congressman Hank Johnson on Guam tipping over - how is this person in charge Democrat saying the moon is made of gas - this person should lose their job permanently Ilhan Omar on Israel Palestine - wtf Extreme leftists on LGBTQIA transgender issues that don't matter - stupid AF and not important Extreme leftists on welfare or UBI for no reason with no plan - fuck off Nancy Pelosi engaging in obviously unethical stock trading - let's figure out what crime this is Joe Biden losing his mind due to dementia - please for the love of god give me a new candidate, but you better believe that I will also call out Trump for being senile Biden mishandling classified documents - investigate Clinton mishandling classified - investigate Political appointees in the IC playing divisive political games in 2016-2020 - this is fucked Is there anyone else you want "us" to call out specifically so that you can feel like we are more fair? Did we miss some required condemnation thread? Please send a flyer next time. To end this pointless defense of the indefensible (that there isn't as much difference between basic, non-extreme, R's and D's as this R-focused echo-chamber that is baseops likes to believe), have I missed the R's on this board being critical of R politicians making seditious comments (just quoted), the assault on the capitol on Jan 6 done by republican fringes, or the minimization of Trump's classified mishandling/financial crimes? It's whataboutism at its finest, there is no moral high ground brochacho, it's literally just your feelings. Pathos arguments work well I guess when you don't have a logos or ethos argument. Also, mods need to move to move this thread to the squadron bar. This is stupid AF to have a political circlejerk on the main page that some random UPT student is going to come across as they're looking for info about flying in the Air Force.
  8. There’s absolutely an argument. Marjorie Taylor Greene says states should “consider seceding from the union” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marjorie-taylor-greene-states-consider-seceding-from-the-union-1234822567/ Why don’t we just agree both sides are terrible and divisive? Because your identity is tied into a made up reductionist construct of a political party?
  9. Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed. You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here. The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating? Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic. Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close. Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support): Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too. Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states? https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-bans-travel-roads-seeking-abortion-104256476 Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.
  10. Maybe that’s how you fix it then. Codify ethnical and legal standards for media. Maybe make a journalists oath similar to the hippocratic oath. I am sure you could do that in a non biased way if we could just get our heads out of our asses. And yes, that means potential limitations of lying or being close to lying on the freedom of the press. And before anyone says that’s unconstitutional, it’s not. We have limitations on almost every right we have (hate speech, over sexualized content, regular citizens can’t have nukes, etc.). The US has to have a serious talk about how the Information Age is making us vulnerable to being controlled by foreign entities.
  11. You really can’t handle having a big boy discussion without bringing in political labels (that are wrong), can you? Nothing I said was political, but you have to bring it back to some super dumb take. Literally you just can’t fathom that we have similarity between our views. MAGA bro.
  12. Israel and the West, specifically the US, are hardcore losing the info war. Seeing some of these high school and college age idiots supporting hamas simply because they are being inundated by TikTok propaganda makes me think we actually should do something. Susceptibility to disinformation is a legitimate vulnerability of democratic societies. How do you fix that?
  13. Real “I’m a tough guy” vibes flowing. Half of Gazas population is under 18 and 70% are 29 or younger. You’re effectively asking blunted, uneducated, young people with no resources - who grew up surrounded by a cult and have been oppressed their whole lives - to just take it into their hands to have an epiphany and “kill the hoodlums.” Oh, it’s also impossible for regular citizens to get weapons, the “hoodlums” are actual savage terrorists, and if you kill them you’ll be likely labeled a terrorist yourself when the narrative is convenient (see the Kurds). I’m sure you’re also appalled by all the Texans who know there are drug dealers crossing the border - whose drugs make it deep into America - and those Texans don’t “just kill” those “motherf*ckers.” There are a lot of useless 15 year olds in Texas, tell ya what.
  14. Just want to point out that folks like you are why alternative viewpoints don’t engage, and why this place has gently flowed back into being the echo chamber it’s always been. Here’s a pretty comprehensive view of why people believe that Israel is still oppressing Palestine, although I know this will be dismissed for no logical reason: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf Want to be clear, I don’t support Hamas or anyone who does. You seem to be getting your parties in a wad, but you don’t even understand why.
  15. There are extreme leftists that are supporting small scale demonstrations that conservative media are significantly overblowing to play on YOUR (specifically) feelings and keep up the narrative that we are mortal enemies and diametrically opposed. Even Ocasio-Cortez condemned the demonstrations supporting Palestine. My point was that he wasn’t going to find someone on this forum that is pro Hamas’s actions. Because it’s a very rare viewpoint right now, including democrats or liberals. Everyone I know is fucking sickened.
  16. I think it’s dumb to apply viewpoints hyperbolically both directions. I think you’ll find that the views you’re so riled up about are not as well held as you think. Even Ocasio-Cortez condemned the Palestinian support protests - one of the most “leftist” people you irrationally despise. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna119687 I think that Rep. Tlaib and Bush are morons and wrong. They are capitalizing on human loss to get political points. Honestly, they’re sickening. Simultaneously, I think the Harvard students who released a letter are technically correct, albeit still wrong about when to talk about this - Israel has contributed to Israel-Palestine instability via effectively running an apartheid state. But it doesn’t excuse terrorist acts. I honestly see how f’d politics is from a Palestinian perspective, and I think you can too. US, EU, and Israel all deciding to admire the problem that Palestinians were effectively living in a penal colony for the last few decades contributed to this occurring. I also see how Palestine are morons and didn’t accept multiple potential compromises over the last 40 years.
  17. Hi, so called “leftist” Ron Burgundy here. If you think that anyone who is slightly liberal supports Hamas, I think you’re confused. As CH said, kill them all. Painfully, preferably. (I’d also like to take this moment to reiterate that no one on this forum is a leftist, your views and biases are so skewed though that I’ll be your huckleberry) Let’s pretend you were looking for nuanced viewpoints. A total war against Palestine is gonna be counterproductive. You’re gonna create more terrorists and Arab nations that are united against Israel - not less. We saw this with the resurgence of Al Qaeda and ISIS. I’m sure you learned this in your service. Getting drawn into the total war trap will be analogous to how the US overcommitted into the Middle East in 2001/2003, resulting in basically the degradation of our own empire and supremacy over the last 20 years for basically nothing! Hamas/Iran WANT this response. Now ask “why?” History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It wouldn’t be the first time civilized nations with very capable militaries are defeated because they didn’t understand the enemy’s centers of gravity (spoiler: it’s not in the people of Palestine). Israel must avoid being emotional, just like we should have in the early 2000s. Now, can they conduct a surgical campaign to kill a bunch of terrorists and save their folks, while simultaneously backing out quickly enough to maintain foreign relations and not destroy their economy? Time will tell. What is not tenable? Another united Arab states war that drives Israel to be a lone island reliant on the U.S. Or, alternatively, I guess you could argue Islam and Judaism/Christianity aren’t compatible. Crusades circa 2024? Glass em all!
  18. If your metric for whether or not things are good is “are they better than the 80s, 90s, or 2000s,” I’ve got bad news for you. America’s extremely rare 60-year global unipolar dominance and being able to benefit from the rest of the world blowing its infrastructure up during WWII is over. There are actually a lot of arguments that being an American in 2019 or 2007 represents the best average life circumstances humans will experience for a long time. Good evidence that being a boomer or a gen x in America = best life humans have ever had, and will maintain that status for the next few generations. See Principles of a Changing World Order by Ray Dalio. Quantitative easing by both parties, immense overspending by both parties, collosal defense and policy failures in the Middle East wars, a lack of focus on infrastructure or investment, and real great power competition equals worse times for the foreseeable future. There is no easy way out, and no political agenda that will just magically fix it.
  19. Dumb and distorted. We have hit 1.0C, are going to hit 1.5C of warming shortly, and are well on our way to 4+. What does that mean? It means your children are gonna have much tougher lives. And the point of the quote was not that we would die in 5 years, but that there would be mass deaths in the future if fossil fuels were not significantly curtailed by 2023. But that’s standard for you, you just don’t know how to read. Sorry that a kid is trying to reduce fossil fuel usage because of actual global warming, and that the right wing media has literally convinced you to hate her. It’s sad to look at. And I’m sure it’s hard for you to always be so mad about everything. Also, it’s a typical pattern to have a fallacy on here, but it’s always worthwhile to point out: No one said we needed to disproportionally affect industrializing societies over already industrialized. In fact, the VAST majority of emissions are due to first world consumption and production (US, China, EU). So we could just cut YOUR (and people like your) emissions, and that would be the 90% solution. But you can throw out a totally unrelated point that we should all be able to roll coal in F350s because if we can’t it would hurt Africa. Bro, you (and your base) don’t give a fuck about Africa or the developing world.
  20. From “da libruls”: Trans rights becoming this important is too much emphasis, agreed. I don’t care to overcompensate, and I don’t think the majority of folks actually care. I personally agree that the woke-ness of some of the messaging is terribly annoying and not focused. And we should stop. Also, I agree that the family unit is important, who said it wasn’t? But wealth inequality is an actual problem that needs to be solved. History also shows that the higher wealth inequality goes the worse society gets. And if you look at society from an average 25 year olds eyes, you’d see that American capitalism as is hasnt made much progress since the 1970s when real wages stopped increasing. Wouldn’t recommend you throw totally separate ideals into one set of issues, because it’s harder to find common ground.
  21. Not surprised Brabus. During some of this discourse through the years I actually, at one point, mistakenly thought you were smart.
  22. No one else wants to engage? We doing the echo chamber thing again where we get really mad at a fallacious argument? Gotta love the analysis capabilities of retired military officers. Let’s look at this. The specific issue with your argument is that you say a couple of facts, but you entirely discount very important tenets to why Americans a a whole did what they did, and then you say something wildly out there that does not logically follow: “the shot should NEVER have been MANDATED.” Very Tucker Carlson approach. The purpose of the shot was to stop transmission so that old people, who had a MORTALITY rate above the single percentages (and a similarly high severe disease rate requiring hospitalization) wouldn’t die in droves and entirely inundate the healthcare system. Everyone understood it wouldn’t kill young people, yes, even early on. The purpose was to maintain the healthcare system. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327 Republicans may not have liked doing something to try and protect the population, but the country as a whole was supportive of efforts to not have every one of their grandparents have a real chance of death. Here are the facts: Side effects of the vaccine were NOT well understood until it was made and distributed to a significant portion of the population, and the negative heart effects are not typical of other vaccine efforts. Those are real, and they are unfortunate. If you say otherwise, provide proof. The fact that it does not significantly limit spread was NOT understood - it initially was believed to significantly cut spread, up to 90%. It didn’t, and that is unfortunate. If you argue otherwise, provide proof. As a side note, many of you strongly pushed for ivermectin just because conservative propaganda wanted you to go against the grain, which has still been shown to have almost no efficacy and multiple bad side effects. Don’t see that addressed very often on here. The vaccine has a very high efficacy rate of reducing mortality and severe illness in those over a certain age. It reduces death rates in populations over 60 by up to 90% in many excess death analyses. Also, republican areas that refused the vaccine had significantly more excess deaths than areas that did not. You entirely discount this point. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna50883 You’ll note that many on this forum - me included - advocated for the vaccine when these things were believed: that it would limit spread, have no significant side effects (like most other vaccines), and limit mortality in vulnerable populations. It only accomplished limiting mortality (which you entirely scoff), and that’s when liberals as a population began not pushing for vaccination as the solution anymore. Especially not for young people, as they were a transmission vector whether or not they got the shots. You’ll also note that, as facts came out that showed the vaccine was not going to be effective from a transmission perspective, they were acknowledged and the push for vaccines decreased. Reminder: Trump recommended vaccination for the first year. Your anger is unjustified. Your argument is fallacious. You have taken rational thought to protect a portion of society - which, fine, you may have disagreed with, but it’s still rooted in logic and rational - and vilified it to the point of insulting your countrymen and implying we are part of what is wrong with America. That hostility and open contempt of others who looked at a problem differently than you did is what is wrong with America. And yes, I recognize there were others on the liberal side that were contemptuous. But let’s not reframe the argument, as a few folks on here including you have done, to you were always right and everyone else was always wrong and what a FUCKIN TRAVESTY. What an absolutely asinine, non intellectual take. Oh, and, as always, I am able to provide actual sources for every single thing I said. But I am going to elect to wait for you to start. Good luck.
  23. Oh would it read better if it said “the right” instead of “you guys?” Because it reads exactly the same.
  24. Sure, let’s do those things. You don’t realize WE DON’T CARE about protecting people like this, that’s you guys with your false equivalencies.
  25. It’s funny how in one breath you guys say “we aren’t advocating civil war” and then you advocate what is effectively civil war. Remember, there are more democrats in Texas than there are Republicans in most states. Vice versa for Republicans in California. Anyone who calls for state secession or a national divorce is either blindingly ignorant or willfully malicious, and you are the opposite of a patriot. Also, it’s rich coming from ”the party of Lincoln.”
  • Create New...