Maggot Infested Hippies Crawled back to Spotify

Good! Perhaps there's something about living in 'America's Finest City' that helps you keep your sanity.

 

Someone should cancel CDC director Rochelle Walesnky for misinformation.

 

deleted J.

 

I'm Joe Biden's age (79) and I fully agree with Bill. Old age and jobs that tough shouldn't go together. Not good for the person - not good for the highest office in the land, either - at least as I see it. Dems should have found a much younger person - like Bill Huffman.

 

The quote visible says "data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus"

The data available April 1 2021, barely into the pandemic, suggested (not proved) to one public health official that vaccinated people couldn't spread the virus. Later data demonstrated more strongly that people could transmit the virus, though vaccination seemed to lower the risk substantially until later variants evaded that protection.

Note the NYT article written that day titled, "Can Vaccinated People Spread the Virus? We Don’t Know, Scientists Say"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccine-walensky.html

What I don't understand is what you get out of coming to an education forum to try to push the same tired conspiracies that were debunked years ago.

 

I like Biden over Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren.

Gavin Newsom ran California like a dictatorship during COVID so he is California dreaming if he thinks he'll win the vote for president.

Pete Buttigieg looks like the best chance as of right now. Maybe someone else's name will pop up soon.

 

Right. I can't figure that either. Plus what I also don't understand is how Ms. Walensky's eyes got so badly crossed in the pic. She doesn't suffer from esotropia in real life. I'm guessing somebody at MSNBC - or here - just flat doesn't like her and has a childish way of showing it. Maybe because she has much more education, experience and professional standing than whoever and they resent it. Yes - Capt. Obvious, again. I know.

 

I was too slow in deleting my original "crossed eyes" comment and it got scooped - but I can live with that. So let's hear it. Why the "conspiracies" and why the crossed eyes?

 

Ya, the truth is her eyes were crossed likely using an image editor program like Photoshop. Why did they do it? For the optics. A lot of time the optics matter more than facts or truth.

So for example the inflation problem isn't all Biden's fault, congress passed all that stuff before he got into office. But he gets the blame because it works.

Ya, it's dirty politics.

 

You know exactly what it is - but you still bring it here. As a recently-minted fashion design grad -- I can definitely say, that's not a good look for you. Not an image enhancer - like Photoshop can sometimes be. ...But You do You. Whatever.

 

Thanks but, I'm 70 and think that I'm too old to be President! Perhaps getting elected at 65 or 66 and finishing at 70 might be okay in general. For me, not though, being retired is just too good.

 

I'd like to just emphasize this because I've wondered this exact same thing! Only this wasn't even a conspiracy. It is just plan stupidity to not be able to accept the fact that as science learns more then previous scientific beliefs simply change, nothing sinister or misleading or even bad about it. It is simply how science works.

 

Since you all seem to know how science works.

Why don't you tell me why they ignored the science of natural immunity, especially when doing the COVID mandates?

They had available the Isreal studies of natural immunity and others readily available.

 

You seem to be making up or at least repeating some false statement you've heard as the basis of your dodge to the question at hand.

 

If "natural immunity" worked the way antivaxxers claim it works (not just for Covid, but for everything), there would have been no need to invent vaccines in the first place.

But it only works the way antivaxxers claim it works if you are a cold, heartless, jerk.

 

I like Buttigieg. I think he's gotten some good experience as secretary. The progressives don't like him? If that just means AOC and those folks then I really don't think it matters much?

 

Hmm, Jared Polis is an entrepreneur. I like that. Though I'm kind of biased towards entrepreneurs

Usually, a senator, a popular house member, or a governor has the best chance to win the presidential nomination.

A billionaire could run too as an outsider, but it's rare to do as the risk/reward ratio isn't worth it for them.

 

Since it appears likely that there won't be any direct address to the question,
LevelUP, I'll just throw this out there and allow you to just explicitly correct any misperceptions that I seem to have garnered.

We spend a fair amount of time on this forum discussing the reliability of sources for information. Long ago Steve shared a most wonderful website MediaBiasFactCheck.com that is frequently used here to evaluate these different sources of information. MediaBiasFactCheck.com covers two aspects for information sources, political leaning and accuracy. One extremely common source of information that is not covered by MediaBiasFactCheck.com is social media. I think it is clear that if MediaBiasFactCheck.com tried to rate social media it would be something along the lines of lowest possible accuracy while political leaning is both far far right and far far left at the same time. Which makes social media an extremely unreliable source of information. Okay social media might be reliable for information as to what your cousin had for dinner at the nice restaurant or did on vacation but, social media is a horrible source for the kind of information that is discussed in this forum. Now, what this has to do with you is that I have concluded that you likely get a very large chunk of your information that you share on this forum from social media. I suspect that others may have concluded the same? The reason that I conclude this is that you very frequently seem to make assertions that seem to be unreliable.