I don't even know what to even call it, "gross miscarriage of justice"?? "salem daddy trials" ?? whatever it may be. When I meet @jack in hell, there will be hell2pay
That's the genius of it: The government didn't throw money at anyone or actually do anything of substance.
Literally all the Trump admin do was speed up the approval process, which any admin would have done.
The guy is just so profoundly stupid and so profoundly uneducated/delusional he thinks he did something special.
This is why he lost the election horribly. Conservative politics just banks on people being stupid/poorly informed and not knowing enough about this stuff to call their leaders out.
This was talked about back when Trump tried to take credit for the Pfizer vaccine and they had to issue a statement debunking it, which led to Trump claiming the companies were rigging the election against him.
So much this. Like if the pandemic never happened, Trump would have won. Hands down. It took a literal act of God to hand that election over to biden and take down the GOP.
The Hill Rising has some great commentary on this.
The pandemic is an act of God. Think catastrophic event, hurricane katrina, ect. It's just a disaster. That is why he lost the pandemic + his response to it (which failed because of his poor character). Were in agreement. I am just saying take away the pandemic trump could have won.
That is what I am saying too, but I am saying if the pandemic never happened trump would have won. Right? We agree that he is an absolute shit leader, what I say though is despite that minus the pandemic he could've won despite being a shit leader.
Who knows, if not the pandemic it would have been his "sick the dogs on them" and gassing national reporters on live tv.
Like, Trump was very likely going to lose this election matter what. He's unpopular, incompetent, and spent his entire term pandering to his base.
Think about this - Obama almost lost in 2012. Obama spent the second of his term moving towards the middle and trying to court moderate voters. Which is what any competent president does.
Trump didn't do any of that, he tried to triple down on his base which is only like 25% of the country.
2018 midterm turnout was so absurdly high that the 2020 election turnout was automatically going to be absurdly high.
Turnout is bad for Republicans.
The guy is not good at politics. He won a fluke election in 2016 because nobody took him seriously and turnout was down.
The ruling party traditionally loses seats during midterms. Yet just like this election those 'horrible' losses were not as horrible as predicted. This election overall was good for republicans. Trump might have lost, but republicans did well in state-level and local races and grew their majorities in state legislatures. The democrat majority in the House has been cut. The Senate was supposed to completely flip to the democrats and right now there's a 50/50 split. If historical trends are predictive the democrats will lose seats in both chambers in 2022.
That isn't even getting into the fact basically every other relevant world leader gained popularity after the pandemic for their responses.
Most other world leaders didn't have a 24/7 media propaganda effort aimed at them, either. The media did the same thing with COVID that it did with the Vietnam conflict, putting up death toll numbers every night and hyping them like everyone's neighbors were dropping like flies around them. 500,000 deaths sounds like the sky is falling until you realize it took a year to reach that number. You'd think we were on verge of digging mass graves listening to the media, but there are 330+ Million people in the US and COVID deaths represent roughly .16% of population. Every death is a tragedy, "for whom the bell tolls" and all that, but most of the pandemic's victims were elderly people who weren't long for this world.
As someone else pointed out to you earlier, the US response to the pandemic is provably better than the response in a lot of western nations. That may be in spite of Orange Man and not because of him, but the only reason you're the least bit skeptical of the data that shows the quality of our response is because you've been told for the last year that Trump was fumbling the response. You're right that it wasn't the pandemic alone (it's never as simple as a single factor) but wrong that it wasn't what put democrats across the finish line, but it only put them across the finish line because the media portrayed the government response as lackluster when in reality the response was better than a lot of other places.
The ruling party traditionally loses seats during midterms.
That's neat, but that isn't the point. The fact 2018 had a historically massive turnout against Republicans is not normal.
Yet just like this election those 'horrible' losses were not as horrible as predicted.
They were about as bad as predicted in 2018. Nt though.
Trump might have lost, but republicans did well in state-level and local races and grew their majorities in state legislatures.
Tell me more how a party losing complete control of the national government in a single term, the first since 1932, is actually doing pretty well because some of their literally rigged state level seats held up.
The democrat majority in the House has been cut. The Senate was supposed to completely flip to the democrats and right now there's a 50/50 split. If historical trends are predictive the democrats will lose seats in both chambers in 2022.
If "historical trends" were predictive, Trump wouldn't have lost the entire government in a single term. Trump isn't on the ticket in 2022, and you can be sure all of those newly activated, poorly educated rural voters that love him won't be showing up.
Most other world leaders didn't have a 24/7 media propaganda effort aimed at them, either.
Yeah Jubber, because as we know, other countries don't have partisan news outlets and competing factions. Stop making yourself look dumber than you normally do bud. Trump failed to handle the pandemic, he himself failed. It wasn't the media, it wasn't anything other than his own profound incompetence and inability to tell the truth.
The media did the same thing with COVID that it did with the Vietnam conflict, putting up death toll numbers every night and hyping them like everyone's neighbors were dropping like flies around them.
Holy shit, you mean to tell me the media reported death tolls for an ONGOING PANDEMIC? UNREAL Jubber, they should have spent more time NOT covering the bad news so dear leader could do slightly better.
500,000 deaths sounds like the sky is falling until you realize there are 330+ Million people in the US and that represents .16% of population. Every death is a tragedy, "for whom the bell tolls" and all that, but most of the pandemic's victims were elderly people who weren't long for this world.
This right here is why you people lost. The absurdity of this argument is so staggering it's just mind blowing.
Just wow.
As someone else pointed out to you earlier, the US response to the pandemic is provably better than the response in a lot of western nations. That may be in spite of Orange Man and not because of him, but the only reason you're the least bit skeptical of the data that shows the quality of our response is because you've been told for the last year that Trump was fumbling the response.
I'm not skeptical of the data. The US pandemic response was saved by the state responses, in spite of Donald Trump. That doesn't change the fact his constant spreading of misinformation, denial of the pandemic, and constant lying about the pandemic made the response harder and slower.
Who knows how many of his cult opted out of masks, didn't take the virus seriously, and killed their loved ones or caused themselves long-term harm because Donald Trump was more concerned with short-term economic numbers and downplaying the pandemic than he was being a leader.
but wrong that it wasn't what put democrats across the finish line, but it only put them across the finish line because the media portrayed the government response as lackluster when in reality the response was better than a lot of other places.
The US response to the pandemic was astronomically worse than anyone could have predicted. Before this pandemic, the US was considered by far the most well prepared country on earth for a pandemic.
The absolute failure of the response in this context is why Trump is viewed in a negative light. Things picked up in the end, but the start was absolutely horrible.
The fact 2018 had a historically massive turnout against Republicans is not normal.
Maybe you missed the historically massive turnout on the side, because as usual you have your thinking spoon-fed to you and you just repeat whatever idiocy your told so someone will pat you on the head and tell you your smart. I think you missed the point. Historically massive turnout didn't give democrats any advantage in state legislatures, nor did it stop them from losing seats in the House. By all rights they should have taken the senate, but now we have a 50/50 split that makes the wishy-washy guy from WV who is barely clinging onto his political career because he's the last democrat elected statewide in his home state.
You can words words words words words words words your day away, but things aren't looking rosy for the democrats. We all know they're not going to be able to stop themselves from doing something stupid like they did in the first two years of President Obama's term in office with the PPACA. Whatever stupid thing they do this time will have the same effect it did then, and you'll be looking at a republican legislature filled with people who want to show democrats that turnabout is fair play and rake DD(D) over the coals.
Maybe you missed the historically massive turnout on the side, because as usual you have your thinking spoon-fed to you and you just repeat whatever idiocy your told so someone will pat you on the head and tell you your smart.
No Jubber, it's that you're poorly educated and don't know what you're talking about.
Democratic turnout was absolutely much higher than Republican turnout in 2018.
Historically massive turnout didn't give democrats any advantage in state legislatures, nor did it stop them from losing seats in the House.
Except it did. The fact the GOP couldn't even take back everything on the state/congressional level given how absurdly rigged these districts are is telling.
The GOP is a party that sails into state level majorities with 35% of the vote.
Democrats winning by 9 points is big, but it isn't big enough to overcome the extreme electoral rigging Republicans have engaged in.
By all rights they should have taken the senate, but now we have a 50/50 split that makes the wishy-washy guy from WV who is barely clinging onto his political career because he's the last democrat elected statewide in his home state.
Democrats are favored to expand their senate majority soon, just so you know pal.
Yeah, 2020 the senate didn't go exactly as expected, but it was without possible outcomes.
There was like a 45% chance this exact balance happened.
You can words words words words words words words your day away, but things aren't looking rosy for the democrats.
Jubber the GOP literally lost the entire national government after a single term and some 3700 state level seats during the Trump term.
The idea it's the democrats on the ropes is peak conservative delusion.
No Jubber, it's that you're poorly educated and don't know what you're talking about.
"no u" isn't much of a rejoinder, especially when you follow it up with a litany of delusions.
They don't win on turnout, they win on reduced turnout, which is why they invest so heavily on voter suppression and electoral rigging.
When I ask for evidence of this alleged 'suppression' what I get usually isn't what the person who puts it forward thinks it is, because like you they have been told it's something it's not and they're not bright enough to read the actual information for themselves. Most of these allegations are claims that republicans have closed voting centers to "suppress the vote." When you look into that you find that there weren't that many of those, in most cases they were closed by bureaucrats, not politicians, and they are mostly satellite locations which weren't adequately utilized by any voters and were closed to save money. Not that you'd know that because a) the media doesn't tell you that because they're either lying to you or as ignorant as you are or b) because you couldn't be bothered to look because what you were told comports with your bias so you don't see a reason to question it.
Democrats are favored to expand their senate majority soon, just so you know pal.
Yes, and Trump couldn't win the election in 2016, just like democrats were supposed to sweep the Senate and expand their majority in the House in this election. Never mind all the state and local races they lost or anything else you ignore that raises doubts about your position.
This isn't even getting into the fact that every single electoral cycle that goes by the GOP moves towards an even worse position given they're in a demographics death spiral.
I've been hearing this one for since at least the time G. W. was mispronouncing nuk-a-lur in the White House and so far this prediction has yet to materialize. Maybe you should quit believing the conventional wisdom, look at what is actually happening, and attempt to think for yourself, especially since the republicans made gains in demographics outside other than YT people in this last election, despite four years of "Drumpft am a racist." Just repeating what other people have said doesn't make you smart.
"no u" isn't much of a rejoinder, especially when you follow it up with a litany of delusions.
There's nothing else to say to you because you are mentally ill.
When I ask for evidence of this alleged 'suppression' what I get usually isn't what the person who puts it forward thinks it is, because like you they have been told it's something it's not and they're not bright enough to read the actual information for themselves.
Jubber we're done here. You have been repeatedly shown irrefutable evidence of this suppression and found ways to spin out of it. Not convincing to anyone other than yourself of course, but still.
It's not worth trying to argue with a person that will just twist and distort any evidence, no matter how damning, and find a way to justify it. The leaked documents, the court rulings, the whistle blowers - these things all exist.
The Republican party literally had a consent decree slapped on them until 2017 specifically for shit like this. You aren't fooling anyone.
Anyone with an above room temp IQ knows exactly what the GOP is and has been engaging in for years.
Bro those gerrymander guys totally had racial demographic data, ID overlays, and districts in which 80% of the local black voting population was drawn into them for completely above the board reasons.
Yes, they were, because we both know that if a state doesn't draw at least one minority controlled district they'd be facing federal investigations and lawsuits. You're claiming that information was being used for nefarious purposes when any idiot could deduce that it was being used to carve out a majority black district, as has been the tradition since the 1960s.
There are 2 forms of racial gerrymandering. Drawing a district to increase African American representation in states that historically suppressed it is legal.
Drawing districts and "packing" them with ethnic minorities to dilute their overall power is illegal.
What happened in NC wasn't the legal form, it was the illegal form. That is to say, Republicans were drawing districts and packing them with demographics they can't win to dilute their power.
the courts ruled on this:
In May of 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court again found that North Carolina had unnecessarily used “race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines” and without good reason, despite changes the previous gerrymandered districts. Despite improvements, the 115th Congressional Districts in North Carolina are still predominantly aligned around race, which can be seen by comparing predominant racial and ethnic groups with 115th Congressional District boundaries.
I don't know where you got your quote from (it's funny how when you do bother to put up something supporting your position, which is rare, that you don't bother to link it) but the 2017 decision was, like a lot of other things, not what you characterize it to be. NC was drawing districts based on race, not to dilute the black vote, but to carve out two minority-majority districts.
I know actually looking at something in-depth before you shoot your mouth off isn't in your nature, so you probably didn't know that back in 1990, before the Supreme Court tossed out provisions of the Voting Rights Act that made some states clearance for their district maps before they were approved, the DOJ made NC divide the map so that there were 2 minority-majority districts. That's something the state maintained even after it was sued for drawing lines based on race, not by the NAACP or anyone with any interest in the black vote, but by those who said drawing lines based on race was a violation of the law.
On June 28, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shaw v. Reno, found that the 12th congressional district was an unlawful racial gerrymander. Justice O'Connor wrote the majority opinion, which found that the district's shape, was "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'," that it should be subject to strict scrutiny as a racial gerrymander, and returned the case to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
On August 22, 1994 the District Court on remand in Shaw v. Hunt did as the Supreme Court had directed, but ruled that the map satisfied strict scrutiny due to the compelling interest of compliance with the Voting Rights Act and insuring representation for black citizens. That decision reversed by the Supreme Court on June 13, 1996 in a ruling that held that the North Carolina plan violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the 12 District did not satisfy a compelling interest.
Every case about NC's redistricting since has been the same thing. The state attempts to carve out majority-minority districts and someone sues because doing so is racial gerrymandering. So, yes, the NC maps got thrown out because they were drawn with racial preferences in mind, but those preferences were not what you think they were. The state was trying to preserve black districts, not dilute the black vote.
My dad used to say, "I don't know how anyone so smart can be so stupid." I would say that describes you to a tee, but I'd be lying. You're really not that smart. You just think you are because you dutifully sat through four years of college and someone gave you a piece of paper. Education is squandered on mediocre individuals like yourself.
Another giant wall of text trying to spin out of objective reality, court rulings, and irrefutable proof you are wrong.
Not even going to read this Jubber, it's ridiculous. NC Republicans not only lost in state court but in the US supreme court over this shit, they irrfutably engaged in illegal racial gerrymandering.
There is no spin there, genius. Go look it up for yourself. The suits to which you're referring were brought because the state was drawing lines based on race to create majority-minority districts. You've been told the suits were "because racism" because some people are dishonest and take advantage of how gullible people like yourself are. No one is saying NC didn't lose in court, genius. No one is even saying there wasn't illegally gerrymandering. That's actually an important part of what I just told you. The point is that the suit isn't what you've been told it is, because NC was attempting to give black voters their own districts, not trying to deprive them of representation. I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand that, but you being stupid doesn't change what actually happened.
Holy shit Jubber, even by your dumb standards this is a stupid lie.
No, that is not what it was over. That is the defense the state tried to use in court, which was rejected.
That's why the court ruled they had no "good reason" to draw the lines on race.
A "good reason" would to increase minority representation. What happened here is NC Republicans got caught red-handed, took it to the supreme court, used the defense you're trying to use here, lost, and had to redraw districts.
Justice Kagan said black voters, in coalitions with others, had been able to elect their preferred candidates even before the redistricting. Adding more black voters to the district, she wrote, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The court divided, 5 to 3, in rejecting District 12, in the south-central part of the state. Lawmakers increased the number of black voters to 50.7 percent from 43.8 percent. “To be specific, the new District 12 had 35,000 more African-Americans of voting age and 50,000 fewer whites of that age,” Justice Kagan wrote.
Republicans tried to pack already correctly gerrymandered districts with even more black voters. The supreme court specifically called what they did an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
That's nice, sweaty, but nothing in what Kagan said in any way contradicts what I said. When you're crying about gerrymandering then say "correctly gerrymandered" it's pretty obvious you don't care if states are gerrymandered. You just don't like the ones who do it in ways you don't like.
Jubber you're here using literally the same defense of an illegal racial gerrymander that NC republicans used, and lost on, in state curt, federal court, and the supreme court.
Second of all, I have repeatedly called for gerrymandering to be made illegal on a federal level.
In fact, the only organizations that are trying to make gerrymandering illegal on a federal level - which would apply to every single state in the union, in case you're wondering, are democratic.
The GOP fights tooth and nail to keep it in place, why? Because Gerrymandering of this caliber is primarily a Republican thing:
Jubber, the SC literally ruled it was an illegal racial gerrymander. The argument you used is the same argument the state lost with in 3 different courts.
That is objective reality.
It is objective reality that every relevant anti-gerrymandering org in America is democratic.
It is an objective fact, using basic math, that gerrymandering primarily benefits Republicans.
Jubber, the SC literally ruled it was an illegal racial gerrymander.
Yes, it was...because there aren't supposed to be any racial gerrymanders. Go read the rulings in question and look at who brought the suits, Einstein.
It is objective reality that every relevant anti-gerrymandering org in America is democratic.
Maybe, but if so they're awfully quiet about gerrymanders in MD and other blue states, aren't they?
Yes, it was...because there aren't supposed to be any racial gerrymanders. Go read the rulings in question and look at who brought the suits, Einstein.
Jubber, no, that is not true. Like, I have no idea how you think this is true.
The entire reason the state used the defense they used is that some are in fact legal. The brand engaged in by NC Republicans was malicious and intended to dilute the voting power of African Americans.
You are beyond ignorant.
Maybe, but if so they're awfully quiet about gerrymanders in MD and other blue states, aren't they?
Jubber, let's try this ok. Let's think here. If Gerrymandering were made illegal on the federal level - which is in fact the goal of these orgs, would that federal law apply to every state in the union, including MD?
Like you can't both sides this, it's not possible. Extreme gerrymandering is primarily a Republican thing.
Because, unlike you and whoever feeds you manure, I actually read the decision.
Like you can't both sides this, it's not possible. Extreme gerrymandering is primarily a Republican thing.
You're right. There really is no equivalence here in regards to who the worst offender(s) are. Yet you're wrong about who the worst offender(s) are. The district maps in IL, NY (which has districts that aren't even geographically contiguous), NJ, and MD would be evidence that seriously contradicts your assertion, especially when the only time 'your team' whines about gerrymandering they're either pointing at NC or TX and misrepresenting things. Your team has double the number of states skewing the lines, and districts MD and NY are far more ridiculously stretched and shaped than those in NC or TX ever have been.
Because, unlike you and whoever feeds you manure, I actually read the decision instead of just cherry-picking things one justice said.
No, because you are unironically making the same argument the NC GOP did, the one they lost 3 times with in court.
Keep in mind this was right around the time they got caught requesting racial voter data and amending their "voter ID law" in such a way that alternative IDs used by black Americans were all removed.
You are not fooling anyone Jubber.
You're right. There really is no equivalence here in regards to who the worst offender(s) are. Yet you're wrong about who the worst offender(s) are. The district maps in IL, NY (which has districts that aren't even geographically contiguous), NJ, and MD would be evidence that seriously contradicts your assertion, especially when the only time 'your team' whines about gerrymandering they're either pointing at NC or TX and misrepresenting things. Your team has double the number of states skewing the lines, and districts MD and NY are far more ridiculously stretched and shaped than those in NC or TX ever have been.
Jubber, I get you're probably poorly educated and don't understand gerrymandering all that well, but you're actually wrong about the worst offenders.
By pretty much any of the metrics used to identify partisan gerrymandering, you're absurdly wrong:
No, because you are unironically making the same argument the NC GOP did
Maybe because "the same argument" is actually the truth, you chowderhead. I know the party press insists it's not and you loyally follow the dictates of the party, but your skewed perception doesn't change reality.
Blog Post
It's super-cute that you think I don't also have Google and would be too stupid not to check and realize you just pulled the first item from a web search that supports your opinion while ignoring every other article. I don't need a survey from partisan organizations to tell me what I can plainly see just by pulling up a state's district maps, and I doubly don't need it when the organization in question is objectively wrong.
And we're done Jubber. Trying to call actual academic papers on the subject "blog posts" and not even knowing what an Efficiency gap is seals the deal.
LOL, "actual academic papers" have touted such idiocy as "gender as a spectrum." You're such an r-slur that if someone puts on a lab coat and says "I'm a scientist" you'd believe anything they'd say.
The only disability here is the one that makes you think taking everything the church "scientists" say as gospel truth without any critical examination of it is either wise or intelligent. This is doubly true when the "science" in question is just the first thing you could find on google that confirmed your preconceived notions. Four (or more) years of college and you're incapable of forming an independent thought or even considering disagreeing with conventional wisdom.
Jubber, when your entire worldview revolves around both siderism and just cycling through talking points you think cancels out entire academic fields of study, it's because you're poorly educated.
You tried to call a mathematical formula based on identifying gerrymanders for the courts "partisan" and seem to have unironically thought that invoking gender studies would someone make you right.
"Both sides" is peak Reddit r-slur language that only means "how dare you point out my hypocrisy." You're the last person that should be complaining about anyone repeating talking points. Nothing you post is in any way an original thought. You're told what to think and follow along dutifully. If you want to buy bullshit because it makes you feel better that's your decision. Don't expect the rest of us to pat you on the head and tell you you're smart just because you repeat the "right things." Your entire post is "how dare you question the churchScience!™" You're no better than a trained chimp.
No Jubber, both siderism is a classic coping tactic that tends to be used by extremists to create either a permission structure to continue said extremism or to create false equivalencies to justify questionable actions.
When you tried to both sides gerrymandering here - that's not a position supported by anything even approaching reality.
To put into perspective how absurd your claim is, look at the Republican 2010 midterm victory. They won the house vote by about 7%. They walked away with a 63 seat gain.
Now look at 2018, in which the DNC won the house vote by 8.3 points. They walked away with 41-43 seats.
Literally all of the data, all of the facts points to gerrymandering primarily being a Republican thing.
This is not a symmetrical issue. It's not possible to think that it is, unless of course you're delusional and have based your entire worldview on both siderism.
Nothing you post is in any way an original thought.
Jubber you keep spamming this shit like it's some epic own or something. This is something stupid people repeat to convince themselves their stupid views are on equal footing with actual education and knowledge.
Most thoughts are not "original." Nothing you have ever said is an originall thought. You literally just spam random twitter conservative talking points. Like, basing your opinions on actual empirical data and research is not bad.
It's absolutely better than basing your views on the shit you see twitter pundits repeat.
Your entire post is "how dare you question the church Science!™" You're no better than a trained chimp.
No Jubber, this is again, a common tactic idiots engage in. All science is meant to be questioned. But you aren't actually coherently questioning science, you're just repeating random bullshit in an effort to dismiss it without even arguing against anything being said.
This is science denier 101:
The second problem is one of the most important. Of course scientists have been wrong in the past, because science is inherently a process of proving other scientists wrong. That’s how science works. It would be a terrible thing if scientists were never wrong because that would mean that science had come to a standstill and was no longer advancing. Here’s the important thing though, scientists are always proved wrong by other scientists! Major scientific principles aren’t overthrown by people with no scientific training sitting on their couch and speculating! New scientific discoveries are made by scientists, not bloggers, not people who have never set foot in a lab. There is no universe in which someone’s uneducated opinion is just as valid as the results of countless peer-reviewed studies.
You should be a mason. Walls of brick are so much more chad than walls of text. I must have really got under your skin to get you to spend twenty minutes hammering your derangement into your keyboard.
You can post as many words as you like. It doesn't make you any smarter, and it doesn't stop you from following the herd and doing/saying what you're told.
Jubber if you think that comment absolutely dismantling you took me 20 minutes you are high.
You again aren't responding to anything being said. All you've done is convince me you don't even understand what science is.
This weird conservative delusion has been beaten into your head to such an extent you think screeching about gender somehow makes mathematical formulas not valid.
The WSJ is right-leaning only in the way that every other neocon anti-Trump republican organization is. They're like the Lincoln Project (hopefully) without the pedophilia.
I continue to be amused by the fixation with Trump getting blowjobs from people who claim to hate his face. Your veiled homophobia is noted, that doesn't make the WSJ any less neocon or anti-Trump. I've been hearing 'third world political party' and 'surely this is the end of republicans' since G. W. uttered the word nuk-a-lur. Yet they control the bulk of state governments and democrats have a very slim majority in both chambers of congress.
I didn't "try" to do anything. If you're using dick-sucking as an insult the inherent implication is that you think anyone who sucks dick is inferior. Given your misogyny (driven by your lack of success in the romantic department, no doubt) it makes sense when you do this while you're talking about women, but when the people you're talking about are both men it's clearly saying "you ghey" as if it's somehow a bad thing. I'm sorry you have to have such basic reasoning explained to you, but thinly veiled racism and homophobia drive the thinking common among people who adhere to your politics, so it's not surprising.
Only somehow who hasn't been reading WSJ could say this and believe it. The editorial board at WSJ are mainly corporatist neocons who were miffed that someone actually wanted to enforce immigration law since that would deprive their corporate patrons of cheap labor. The only time they showed any support for Trump was on their pet issues, like deregulation and feeding the military-industrial complex with expanded military funding. The rest of the time it was the usual whining about his tone and how he's a crass, philandering vulgarian, which are fair complaints given his tone and being a crass, philandering vulgarian, but the latter definitely outnumber the former.
Jubber the fact you think larps and memes are real is hilarious. Like, you're just blatantly a poorly educated Trumptard that lives in his own little reality denial bubble.
WSJ is a right-wing rag. Posting real news sometimes doesn't change that or mean they're anti-Trump.
I also love how you think Trump is somehow anti-military industrial complex considering he funneled more money to the military than any president in modern history, ramped up drone stikes and bombings globally, and increased US troops abroad is just absurd.
This is probably the most damning evidence yet that you, yourself, are a magatard.
I also love how you think Trump is somehow anti-military industrial complex
Either I made a typo or you're more of an r-slur than I thought you were. I said one of the issues they backed him on was expanding military funding. For someone who thinks they're smart you certainly seem to have a lot of trouble with the written word.
Either I made a typo or you're more of an r-slur than I thought you were. I said one of the issues they backed him on was expanding military funding. For someone who thinks they're smart you certainly seem to have a lot of trouble with the written word.
Didn't you make a comment somewhere here about how the WSJ was anti-Trump because he was against the military industrial complex? I don't know, maybe it wasn't you, I get you low IQ conservatives mixed up quite a bit.
As I believe I already said, on certain issues they were in alignment with Trump, but in general they were not Trump fans. You can keep saying "they're pro-Trump" all you want. That doesn't make it so. The statement I made about the military-industrial complex was in the post preceding the one in which you demonstrated that words are hard. So, yes, I made the comment, but as with most things you saw what you wanted to see instead of what was actually written.
If you're the product of "formal education" I'd likely be better off were you right, which you aren't, as usual. I can at least cite the rulings in question and summarize them. You don't know anything about them other than what you've been told.
I mean are we really going to sit here and pretend that operation warp speed would have been done any differently by any other president? Idk about giving him credit for the bare minimum again. "Good job you somehow didn't fuck this one up like you do with every large Operation you have ever done in your life here's your sticker"
No, I am not wrong. The vaccine he took credit for wasn't even part of the program you tried to cite lmao.
The only real thing warp speed even did was speed up production/approval, which has been a standard part of the US pandemic plan for years, before Trump even ran for office.
Attention caught. People look towards the speaker. They hold their breaths but do not notice.
MAN
Eyes widen. Pupils dilate. Lips purse into smiles. The anticipation, palpable.
BAD!!!
Raucous laughter. Intense applause. Babies are birthed immediately from wed and unwed expectants both. The whole world is dancing. All hopes have been proven true and just.
First of all, Pfizer got a $1.6 billion contract for 100k doses (as your own source mentions in small print), whenever anyone tries to spin this as if it had nothing to do with the operation Warp Speed you should make a mental note that they suffer from TDS and their spin can't be trusted.
Third, sure, it all seems like common sense, but so is not sending young people with COVID to nursing homes so that you don't have to falsify death statistics while raping aides, and yet... So I don't share your optimism about the counterfactual scenario where Trump wasn't the President and don't think that the credit for not being a total moron is undeserved. And that's just on general grounds, he also disliked FDA and regulation unlike Hillary so that sure helped, and who knows how the culture war front would be drawn in that alternate universe, remember when Pelosi went to hug people in the LA Chinatown? That was when Trump was already pushing hard for vaccines and shortly before the air travel ban, are you sure Hillary wouldn't virtue signal that Covid is no big deal instead?
Finally, here's a hot load of 'tism about Trump and FDA in particular:
Here's Der Spiegel on EU response:
The contrast is unmistakable. On the one hand, there is the supposedly incompetent Trump administration, which will provide vaccines to 20 million Americans in the next two to three weeks alone. By the end of March, the plan is for around 100 million Americans to have received the two vaccine injections they need.
On the other hand, there is the supposedly well-prepared Europeans, who continue to have to wait for a vaccine that was developed in Germany. And who still don’t know exactly how much of the vaccine they will be getting in the coming months.
Initially, Germany’s health minister has announced, there will probably only be 400,000 vaccine doses for Germany, with another 11 to 13 million to
follow by March -- a fraction of the amount the Americans are getting.
The article goes into great depth about how Europe is failing horribly relative to the US (not to mention East Asia).
So why is the US doing so well?
Lets go back to 2016. Trump picked Scott Gottlieb for FDA head, heavily criticized at the time. Gottlieb was a big proponent of FDA deregulation and getting drugs to market faster. In particular, faster approvals of generic drugs was a key policy of Trump to reduce drug prices.
Gottlieb and others did push deregulation, including of random silly things.
Around 2019, Trump got interested in vaccines. He wound up passing an executive order based on the premise that production and scale matters a lot, efficacy matters less because the goal is herd immunity. The main target of the
EO was flu vaccines and pharma companies shipping (as the FDA/CDC requested) small numbers of doses of high efficacy flu vaccines.
Also from a 2019 report from Trump's Council of Economic Advisers:
...innovation to increase the speed of vaccine production is key. Improving vaccine efficacy alone will be of little value in a pandemic if...the vaccine only becomes available after a large number of infections have occurred. Improving efficacy only yields value after greater speed has been achieved.
With this in mind, come 2020. Starting as early as Feb, Trump was talking about the need for a vaccine.
Casey Mulligan - the leader of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers - has now provided some insight into what happened:
I was in the Oval Office with the president and his economic team in February (when COVID-19 cases were beginning to spread). His staff was worried that the FDA would not be interested in removing any more approval barriers. But the President was confident, telling us that “I’ve done it before and will do it again … bring the FDA management in here.” President Trump initiated his Operation Warp speed, led by HHS, to give many private companies incentives for “speed and scale” of vaccine production and to give all companies the opportunity for streamlined FDA approval.
So after all this, it looked like Trump - and no other major politician - was actually the right person to handle COVID. He recognized that the bureaucrats at the FDA were the problem and did what he could to get them out of the way. I suspect that no other US politician would have done the same. From what Der Spiegel writes, it appears that no Euro politicians (besides perhaps Boris Johnson) were willing to either.
Seriously though (oh no I'm doing it again) I always considered internet arguments against obnoxious pedants to be a training for the brain, a way to learn how to make really watertight arguments, which is good for reasoning about my own life with myself for example.
I ran that account for more than two years, usually I retire them after I hit one. This is a bit unfortunate because look, I recognize you for example and have fuzzy warm feelings towards you, and I'd like to be recognized similarly by everyone, but on the other hand that's namefslurretry and actually being recognized the way it happened just now is way more awesome now that I think about it.
Serious posts are the vegetables your mom makes you eat with dinner so you don't grow up to be a male feminist. They're terrible, but they make you a better person.
First of all, Pfizer got a $1.6 billion contract for 100k doses (as your own source mentions in small print), whenever anyone tries to spin this as if it had nothing to do with the operation Warp Speed you should make a mental note that they suffer from TDS and their spin can't be trusted.
And stopped reading. Getting a contract to sell doses is completely irrelevant.
The doses would always be sold, we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The bottom line is that vaccine had nothing to do with the US government, period, and Trump lied when he tried to take credit for it.
I could run down this entire comment and respond to what I can only assume are similarly retarded arguments, but I don't see the need to really.
Mainly because after your "climate change isn't real and models with no natural disaster forecasting are valid" meme, there's just no reason for me to assume you are even capable of operating in good faith.
You can try to warp reality and chant "TDS" all you want, you and your cult leader are low IQ bufoons with not one redeeming quality.
You are trash, you lost in a landslide election, and nothing you say is relevant.
The doses would always be sold, we were in the middle of a pandemic.
You should've told Pfizer not to sign the contract then, since doses would always be sold and they wouldn't want to tie their hands regarding the price. What fools they were compared to you 😏
When will you learn that doubling down on a retarded thing you said makes you look twice as retarded?
I'm honestly baffled as to how you're this dumb man. Conceptually it makes no sense to me.
You are unironically trying to give the US government credit for signing a contract for vaccine doses during a pandemic, as if that's some unique feat and display of competence.
I knew you were dumb given that climate change argument, but now you're just taking it to the next level.
The best part is no US funding went to that research and development. A company literally made a vaccine, without the US government, and donald Trump tried to take credit for it. Why? Because as long as morons such as yourself exist, being a conservative grifter is just too easy.
You are unironically trying to give the US government credit for signing a contract for vaccine doses during a pandemic, as if that's some unique feat and display of competence.
Well, as you can see it is rather unique seeing that very few governments managed to pull it off somehow.
And that was just one thing among many, the one you decided to make your hill to die on because obviously to your very big brain Operation Warp Speed signing a two billion dollar contract in advance didn't facilitate the development of the vaccine, Pfizer gladly signed it because they didn't know how to do business.
By the way, if you found other, better studies on the projected effects of the AGW on global GDP I'd gladly look at them, so far it's studies I found versus your gut feeling. Which, I don't know, maybe is how you argue with your other inbred relatives, but I have higher standards sweaty.
This has nothing to do with the absurd claim you made - that only the US had contracts for vaccine does. To put into perspective how stupid your claim is:
The United States has secured 400 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, enough for 200 million people, and is close to arranging 200 million additional doses by summer, with options to buy up to 500 million more. It also has advance purchase agreements for more than 1 billion doses from four other companies whose inoculations do not yet have U.S. regulatory approval.
The European Commission, the European Union’s executive branch negotiating on behalf of its 27 member states, has nearly 2.3 billion doses under contract and is negotiating for about 300 million more, according to data collected by UNICEF and Airfinity, a science analytics company.
The current level of vaccination has nothing to do with doses secured.
He won't. Claiming you said something didn't then arguing against his distortion is classic P-Shilly. I'm pretty sure he learned it from Snopes and Politifact, since that a pretty standard gimmick for them, too.
You are unironically trying to give the US government credit for signing a contract for vaccine doses during a pandemic, as if that's some unique feat and display of competence.
To which you respond:
Well, as you can see it is rather unique seeing that very few governments managed to pull it off somehow.
It wasn't "few governments" basically every western country had contracts in place for vaccine doses.
It wasn't "few governments" basically every western country had contracts in place for vaccine doses.
"Having contracts" gets you a participation prize. Having good contract terms and a lot of doses secured is something that only literally half a dozen countries managed to pull off, and with a huge gap between them and also-rans. Now you might complain that Trump wasn't as good a negotiator as the Jews, but it's a bit of an impossible bar to clear, don't you think?
You're not making real arguments. You're legit moving from "most governments didn't have contracts" to "they didn't have good contracts."
That's a very uncharitable reading of what I said.
We are discussing whether Trump's USA got exceptionally good contracts (as a part of the bigger argument on whether Trump's USA had a good response to the pandemic) and the answer is "yes", no matter how much you will equivocate about other countries signing some contracts as well.
The best part of this is I know for a fact you've never read any of them nor do you have any idea how good or bad they were.
I know for the fact that you haven't read the Der Spiegel article complaining about the abysmal handling of provisioning COVID vaccines by the EU, because you told me that you did not. Maybe you should, seeing how I thoroughly trumped you here and the only good thing about it for you is the opportunity to learn the facts so that you could avoid being humiliatingly clowned on again.
I give literally not 2 shits about a spiegel article dude. A vaccine is a vaccine.
Yes, and the US vaccinated 30% of its population while Germany vaccinated 10%, despite Pfizer being, you know, lmao. Trump >> Merkel.
The objective reality here is that your claim "few governments had a contract" is absolutely false, no matter what.
That's a very uncharitable reading of what I claimed.
The fact you think I even give 2 shits about what some burger flipping 60 IQ drama tard thinks is hilarious.
Maybe your problem is that you just don't recognize it when a superior intellect totally wipes the floor with you? A variation on the blub paradox of sorts?
You legit tried to claim climate change wasn't a big deal 2 days ago.
Not quite, I said that from what I know it's not a big deal for all OECD countries except Australia and, ironically, the USA. I provided two papers in support, and would be willing to provide more (including the 2017 or so UN report) if only you linked a single paper in response. Unfortunately you either smoked your brains out or were rslurred to begin with, so instead all I got was "these papers aren't perfect so my gut feeling beats them".
That's a very uncharitable reading of what I claimed.
It's literally word for word what you said.
Not quite, I said that from what I know it's not a big deal for all OECD countries except Australia and, ironically, the USA. I provided two papers in support
I literally explained to you in detail why your claim was dumb. Trying to calculate long-term climate change economic damage without even accounting for natural disasters and global economic damage is fucking absurd.
I understand you being a poorly educated internet conservative requires you to believe dumb things, but even by those standards your claim is dumb.
This isn't a 'gut feeling."
A primary reason climate change is bad is natural disasters. Trying to calculate long-term GDP growth/decline without even thinking about natural disasters - and doing it on a fairly isolated basis (looking at specific countries as opposed to the global economy) is absolutely absurd.
Of course I didn't mean just getting a contract, I meant getting good contracts, which literally a handful of countries managed, one of which is Israel and two of which are small oil monarchies, then there's the Trump's US and the Boris Johnson's UK, and then somehow Chile and Serbia. Everyone else fucked up.
I literally explained to you in detail why your claim was dumb. Trying to calculate long-term climate change economic damage without even accounting for natural disasters and global economic damage is fucking absurd.
I trust expert opinions over an rslurred internet rando, sorry. You failed to provide expert opinions supporting your rslurred internet rando point, so "they are not perfect therefore my rslurred internet rando gut feeling is better". I agree with your criticisms! Just not with what we should believe as a result.
Pizza, what's wrong with you, can't you google, can't you find a single legit paper supporting your doomer attitude? Did you google and found that paper and realized that you'd better not post it (though I probably give too much credit to your nonexistent selfawareness with this possibility)?
Did you really just link some mangled Trumpian bullshit that proves he's low intelligence to counter my argument that he's low intelligence?
Of course I didn't mean just getting a contract, I meant getting good contracts, which literally a handful of countries managed, one of which is Israel and two of which are small oil monarchies, then there's the Trump's US and the Boris Johnson's UK, and then somehow Chile and Serbia. Everyone else fucked up.
define what a good contract is, explain how the contracts the US got were good and the ones other countries got were not good.
I trust expert opinions over an rslurred internet rando, sorry. You failed to provide expert opinions supporting your rslurred internet rando point, so "they are not perfect therefore my rslurred internet rando gut feeling is better". I agree with your criticisms! Just not with what we should believe as a result.
The best part of this is you aren't actually responding to anything said. Just proving you don't know how to read a scientific paper.
Did you really just link some mangled Trumpian bullshit that proves he's low intelligence to counter my argument that he's low intelligence?
Trump is a warrior poet, this is obvious. You ignore this fact because you don't like his message. You laugh at his ability to go on multiple nested tangents and unerringly pop the stack to get back on track. You laugh at his ability to speak pure poetry to his followers because that's not "coherent sentences". You got your loss in 2016 because of that, you will get more if you continue to underestimate your enemies.
define what a good contract is, explain how the contracts the US got were good and the ones other countries got were not good.
A good contract is that which lets you vaccinate about 30% of your population by March 10th, 2021. The US got good contracts because Donald J. Trump was a master negotiator. Most other countries got 10% at best. More questions?
The best part of this is you aren't actually responding to anything said. Just proving you don't know how to read a scientific paper.
Again, I can find you an official UN overview, I don't because why would I if the current score on papers is 2-0 in my favor, not even getting into the contents.
the vaccine Trump tried to take credit for wasn't even part of "operation warp speed."
Yes, it was. Why do you repeat this debunked lie?
Some tarded female scientist tried to say they weren't, but she was immediately corrected by the company spokesperson.
"Pfizer is one of various vaccine manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential COVID-19 vaccine," Castillo said in an email.
Nice strawman. I never mentioned development funds, I said they were part of operation warp speed.
I'll quote it again
"Pfizer is one of various vaccine manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential COVID-19 vaccine," Castillo said in an email.
Which means what you said here
the vaccine Trump tried to take credit for wasn't even part of operation warp speed.
TDS Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom/TDS®) delivers high-speed internet, TV entertainment, and phone services to nearly 900 rural, suburban, and metropolitan communities across the U.S. With more than 1.2 million connections, TDS is one of the fastest growing technology companies in the United States. Powered by fiber-optics and new industry-leading technologies, TDS delivers up to 1 Gigabit internet speeds and offers internet-protocol based TV entertainment solutions along with traditional phone services. TDS also offers businesses VoIP advanced communications solutions, dedicated internet service, data networking, and hosted-managed services.
He’s doing everyone a service with this statement because he’s telling his followers that COVID isn’t a hoax and you won’t be kicked out of the cult if you get the shot.
That's the great thing about pa. It totally sounds like him but it also sounds like satire. Both are believable. I didn't look into it. I'm sure someone else will let us know.
lol that's why I don't even try. It seems plausible either way and now that code illiterate journalists use reddit posts as citations, you can't trust any news source.
161 comments
2 Pepperglue 2021-03-11
I love the drama this man brings.
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
I can't wait for the Family Schism.
1 DeficientRat 2021-03-11
Big if true
1 Maskedrussian 2021-03-11
Remember what they took from you.
3 tHeSiD 2021-03-11
I don't even know what to even call it, "gross miscarriage of justice"?? "salem daddy trials" ?? whatever it may be. When I meet @jack in hell, there will be hell2pay
3 SecretSnack 2021-03-11
LEFTISTS FUCKED MY WIFE
4 employee10038080 2021-03-11
Obviously fake news. Leftist don't fuck
2 SecretSnack 2021-03-11
A fellow patriot would respect my property rights over my wife
seethes
struggles to push a modest stream of urine past my inflamed prostate
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
My ears thank you.
1 heretobefriends 2021-03-11
It's true. Only a mind like trump's could have thought to throw money at big pharm to get a vaccine.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
That's the genius of it: The government didn't throw money at anyone or actually do anything of substance.
Literally all the Trump admin do was speed up the approval process, which any admin would have done.
The guy is just so profoundly stupid and so profoundly uneducated/delusional he thinks he did something special.
This is why he lost the election horribly.
1 AutoModerator 2021-03-11
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
That's the genius of it: The government didn't throw money at anyone or actually do anything of substance.
Literally all the Trump admin do was speed up the approval process, which any admin would have done.
The guy is just so profoundly stupid and so profoundly uneducated/delusional he thinks he did something special.
This is why he lost the election horribly. Conservative politics just banks on people being stupid/poorly informed and not knowing enough about this stuff to call their leaders out.
This was talked about back when Trump tried to take credit for the Pfizer vaccine and they had to issue a statement debunking it, which led to Trump claiming the companies were rigging the election against him.
2 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
So much this. Like if the pandemic never happened, Trump would have won. Hands down. It took a literal act of God to hand that election over to biden and take down the GOP.
The Hill Rising has some great commentary on this.
5 ManBearFridge 2021-03-11
Turns out basing your platform on trying to ignore a disease that is killing your voter base can back fire on you. Makes you thunk.
-3 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
I'm not really what that's even being based on.
The GOP for example lost horribly in 2018, before the pandemic even existed.
Trump was one of the least popular presidents in history. The idea the pandemic alone is why he lost is just... delusional.
That isn't even getting into the fact basically every other relevant world leader gained popularity after the pandemic for their responses.
If the pandemic did cost Trump the election, it wasn't an act of god, it was him being incompetent.
2 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
The pandemic is an act of God. Think catastrophic event, hurricane katrina, ect. It's just a disaster. That is why he lost the pandemic + his response to it (which failed because of his poor character). Were in agreement. I am just saying take away the pandemic trump could have won.
-2 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
You're not getting what I'm saying.
The pandemic didn't cost Trump - his failure to respond to it did. A natural disaster is not bad for a politician, the opposite of that is true.
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
That is what I am saying too, but I am saying if the pandemic never happened trump would have won. Right? We agree that he is an absolute shit leader, what I say though is despite that minus the pandemic he could've won despite being a shit leader.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Who knows, if not the pandemic it would have been his "sick the dogs on them" and gassing national reporters on live tv.
Like, Trump was very likely going to lose this election matter what. He's unpopular, incompetent, and spent his entire term pandering to his base.
Think about this - Obama almost lost in 2012. Obama spent the second of his term moving towards the middle and trying to court moderate voters. Which is what any competent president does.
Trump didn't do any of that, he tried to triple down on his base which is only like 25% of the country.
2018 midterm turnout was so absurdly high that the 2020 election turnout was automatically going to be absurdly high.
Turnout is bad for Republicans.
The guy is not good at politics. He won a fluke election in 2016 because nobody took him seriously and turnout was down.
He was never going to win a real election.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
The ruling party traditionally loses seats during midterms. Yet just like this election those 'horrible' losses were not as horrible as predicted. This election overall was good for republicans. Trump might have lost, but republicans did well in state-level and local races and grew their majorities in state legislatures. The democrat majority in the House has been cut. The Senate was supposed to completely flip to the democrats and right now there's a 50/50 split. If historical trends are predictive the democrats will lose seats in both chambers in 2022.
Most other world leaders didn't have a 24/7 media propaganda effort aimed at them, either. The media did the same thing with COVID that it did with the Vietnam conflict, putting up death toll numbers every night and hyping them like everyone's neighbors were dropping like flies around them. 500,000 deaths sounds like the sky is falling until you realize it took a year to reach that number. You'd think we were on verge of digging mass graves listening to the media, but there are 330+ Million people in the US and COVID deaths represent roughly .16% of population. Every death is a tragedy, "for whom the bell tolls" and all that, but most of the pandemic's victims were elderly people who weren't long for this world.
As someone else pointed out to you earlier, the US response to the pandemic is provably better than the response in a lot of western nations. That may be in spite of Orange Man and not because of him, but the only reason you're the least bit skeptical of the data that shows the quality of our response is because you've been told for the last year that Trump was fumbling the response. You're right that it wasn't the pandemic alone (it's never as simple as a single factor) but wrong that it wasn't what put democrats across the finish line, but it only put them across the finish line because the media portrayed the government response as lackluster when in reality the response was better than a lot of other places.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
That's neat, but that isn't the point. The fact 2018 had a historically massive turnout against Republicans is not normal.
They were about as bad as predicted in 2018. Nt though.
Tell me more how a party losing complete control of the national government in a single term, the first since 1932, is actually doing pretty well because some of their literally rigged state level seats held up.
If "historical trends" were predictive, Trump wouldn't have lost the entire government in a single term. Trump isn't on the ticket in 2022, and you can be sure all of those newly activated, poorly educated rural voters that love him won't be showing up.
Yeah Jubber, because as we know, other countries don't have partisan news outlets and competing factions. Stop making yourself look dumber than you normally do bud. Trump failed to handle the pandemic, he himself failed. It wasn't the media, it wasn't anything other than his own profound incompetence and inability to tell the truth.
Holy shit, you mean to tell me the media reported death tolls for an ONGOING PANDEMIC? UNREAL Jubber, they should have spent more time NOT covering the bad news so dear leader could do slightly better.
This right here is why you people lost. The absurdity of this argument is so staggering it's just mind blowing.
Just wow.
I'm not skeptical of the data. The US pandemic response was saved by the state responses, in spite of Donald Trump. That doesn't change the fact his constant spreading of misinformation, denial of the pandemic, and constant lying about the pandemic made the response harder and slower.
Who knows how many of his cult opted out of masks, didn't take the virus seriously, and killed their loved ones or caused themselves long-term harm because Donald Trump was more concerned with short-term economic numbers and downplaying the pandemic than he was being a leader.
The US response to the pandemic was astronomically worse than anyone could have predicted. Before this pandemic, the US was considered by far the most well prepared country on earth for a pandemic.
The absolute failure of the response in this context is why Trump is viewed in a negative light. Things picked up in the end, but the start was absolutely horrible.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Maybe you missed the historically massive turnout on the side, because as usual you have your thinking spoon-fed to you and you just repeat whatever idiocy your told so someone will pat you on the head and tell you your smart. I think you missed the point. Historically massive turnout didn't give democrats any advantage in state legislatures, nor did it stop them from losing seats in the House. By all rights they should have taken the senate, but now we have a 50/50 split that makes the wishy-washy guy from WV who is barely clinging onto his political career because he's the last democrat elected statewide in his home state.
You can words words words words words words words your day away, but things aren't looking rosy for the democrats. We all know they're not going to be able to stop themselves from doing something stupid like they did in the first two years of President Obama's term in office with the PPACA. Whatever stupid thing they do this time will have the same effect it did then, and you'll be looking at a republican legislature filled with people who want to show democrats that turnabout is fair play and rake DD(D) over the coals.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
No Jubber, it's that you're poorly educated and don't know what you're talking about.
Democratic turnout was absolutely much higher than Republican turnout in 2018.
Except it did. The fact the GOP couldn't even take back everything on the state/congressional level given how absurdly rigged these districts are is telling.
The GOP is a party that sails into state level majorities with 35% of the vote.
Democrats winning by 9 points is big, but it isn't big enough to overcome the extreme electoral rigging Republicans have engaged in.
Democrats are favored to expand their senate majority soon, just so you know pal.
Yeah, 2020 the senate didn't go exactly as expected, but it was without possible outcomes.
There was like a 45% chance this exact balance happened.
Jubber the GOP literally lost the entire national government after a single term and some 3700 state level seats during the Trump term.
The idea it's the democrats on the ropes is peak conservative delusion.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
"no u" isn't much of a rejoinder, especially when you follow it up with a litany of delusions.
When I ask for evidence of this alleged 'suppression' what I get usually isn't what the person who puts it forward thinks it is, because like you they have been told it's something it's not and they're not bright enough to read the actual information for themselves. Most of these allegations are claims that republicans have closed voting centers to "suppress the vote." When you look into that you find that there weren't that many of those, in most cases they were closed by bureaucrats, not politicians, and they are mostly satellite locations which weren't adequately utilized by any voters and were closed to save money. Not that you'd know that because a) the media doesn't tell you that because they're either lying to you or as ignorant as you are or b) because you couldn't be bothered to look because what you were told comports with your bias so you don't see a reason to question it.
Yes, and Trump couldn't win the election in 2016, just like democrats were supposed to sweep the Senate and expand their majority in the House in this election. Never mind all the state and local races they lost or anything else you ignore that raises doubts about your position.
I've been hearing this one for since at least the time G. W. was mispronouncing nuk-a-lur in the White House and so far this prediction has yet to materialize. Maybe you should quit believing the conventional wisdom, look at what is actually happening, and attempt to think for yourself, especially since the republicans made gains in demographics outside other than YT people in this last election, despite four years of "Drumpft am a racist." Just repeating what other people have said doesn't make you smart.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
There's nothing else to say to you because you are mentally ill.
Jubber we're done here. You have been repeatedly shown irrefutable evidence of this suppression and found ways to spin out of it. Not convincing to anyone other than yourself of course, but still.
It's not worth trying to argue with a person that will just twist and distort any evidence, no matter how damning, and find a way to justify it. The leaked documents, the court rulings, the whistle blowers - these things all exist.
The Republican party literally had a consent decree slapped on them until 2017 specifically for shit like this. You aren't fooling anyone.
Anyone with an above room temp IQ knows exactly what the GOP is and has been engaging in for years.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Yet you continue to respond. You type walls of text and all I see when I read them is "moo."
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Bro those gerrymander guys totally had racial demographic data, ID overlays, and districts in which 80% of the local black voting population was drawn into them for completely above the board reasons.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Yes, they were, because we both know that if a state doesn't draw at least one minority controlled district they'd be facing federal investigations and lawsuits. You're claiming that information was being used for nefarious purposes when any idiot could deduce that it was being used to carve out a majority black district, as has been the tradition since the 1960s.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, you're displaying your ignorance pal.
There are 2 forms of racial gerrymandering. Drawing a district to increase African American representation in states that historically suppressed it is legal.
Drawing districts and "packing" them with ethnic minorities to dilute their overall power is illegal.
What happened in NC wasn't the legal form, it was the illegal form. That is to say, Republicans were drawing districts and packing them with demographics they can't win to dilute their power.
the courts ruled on this:
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
I don't know where you got your quote from (it's funny how when you do bother to put up something supporting your position, which is rare, that you don't bother to link it) but the 2017 decision was, like a lot of other things, not what you characterize it to be. NC was drawing districts based on race, not to dilute the black vote, but to carve out two minority-majority districts.
I know actually looking at something in-depth before you shoot your mouth off isn't in your nature, so you probably didn't know that back in 1990, before the Supreme Court tossed out provisions of the Voting Rights Act that made some states clearance for their district maps before they were approved, the DOJ made NC divide the map so that there were 2 minority-majority districts. That's something the state maintained even after it was sued for drawing lines based on race, not by the NAACP or anyone with any interest in the black vote, but by those who said drawing lines based on race was a violation of the law.
On June 28, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shaw v. Reno, found that the 12th congressional district was an unlawful racial gerrymander. Justice O'Connor wrote the majority opinion, which found that the district's shape, was "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'," that it should be subject to strict scrutiny as a racial gerrymander, and returned the case to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
On August 22, 1994 the District Court on remand in Shaw v. Hunt did as the Supreme Court had directed, but ruled that the map satisfied strict scrutiny due to the compelling interest of compliance with the Voting Rights Act and insuring representation for black citizens. That decision reversed by the Supreme Court on June 13, 1996 in a ruling that held that the North Carolina plan violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the 12 District did not satisfy a compelling interest.
Every case about NC's redistricting since has been the same thing. The state attempts to carve out majority-minority districts and someone sues because doing so is racial gerrymandering. So, yes, the NC maps got thrown out because they were drawn with racial preferences in mind, but those preferences were not what you think they were. The state was trying to preserve black districts, not dilute the black vote.
My dad used to say, "I don't know how anyone so smart can be so stupid." I would say that describes you to a tee, but I'd be lying. You're really not that smart. You just think you are because you dutifully sat through four years of college and someone gave you a piece of paper. Education is squandered on mediocre individuals like yourself.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Another giant wall of text trying to spin out of objective reality, court rulings, and irrefutable proof you are wrong.
Not even going to read this Jubber, it's ridiculous. NC Republicans not only lost in state court but in the US supreme court over this shit, they irrfutably engaged in illegal racial gerrymandering.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
There is no spin there, genius. Go look it up for yourself. The suits to which you're referring were brought because the state was drawing lines based on race to create majority-minority districts. You've been told the suits were "because racism" because some people are dishonest and take advantage of how gullible people like yourself are. No one is saying NC didn't lose in court, genius. No one is even saying there wasn't illegally gerrymandering. That's actually an important part of what I just told you. The point is that the suit isn't what you've been told it is, because NC was attempting to give black voters their own districts, not trying to deprive them of representation. I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand that, but you being stupid doesn't change what actually happened.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Holy shit Jubber, even by your dumb standards this is a stupid lie.
No, that is not what it was over. That is the defense the state tried to use in court, which was rejected.
That's why the court ruled they had no "good reason" to draw the lines on race.
A "good reason" would to increase minority representation. What happened here is NC Republicans got caught red-handed, took it to the supreme court, used the defense you're trying to use here, lost, and had to redraw districts.
Republicans tried to pack already correctly gerrymandered districts with even more black voters. The supreme court specifically called what they did an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
That's nice, sweaty, but nothing in what Kagan said in any way contradicts what I said. When you're crying about gerrymandering then say "correctly gerrymandered" it's pretty obvious you don't care if states are gerrymandered. You just don't like the ones who do it in ways you don't like.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber you're here using literally the same defense of an illegal racial gerrymander that NC republicans used, and lost on, in state curt, federal court, and the supreme court.
Second of all, I have repeatedly called for gerrymandering to be made illegal on a federal level.
In fact, the only organizations that are trying to make gerrymandering illegal on a federal level - which would apply to every single state in the union, in case you're wondering, are democratic.
The GOP fights tooth and nail to keep it in place, why? Because Gerrymandering of this caliber is primarily a Republican thing:
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
As usual, you can't just admit you're wrong and continue to double-down. Good thing you don't gamble.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, the SC literally ruled it was an illegal racial gerrymander. The argument you used is the same argument the state lost with in 3 different courts.
That is objective reality.
It is objective reality that every relevant anti-gerrymandering org in America is democratic.
It is an objective fact, using basic math, that gerrymandering primarily benefits Republicans.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Yes, it was...because there aren't supposed to be any racial gerrymanders. Go read the rulings in question and look at who brought the suits, Einstein.
Maybe, but if so they're awfully quiet about gerrymanders in MD and other blue states, aren't they?
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, no, that is not true. Like, I have no idea how you think this is true.
The entire reason the state used the defense they used is that some are in fact legal. The brand engaged in by NC Republicans was malicious and intended to dilute the voting power of African Americans.
You are beyond ignorant.
Jubber, let's try this ok. Let's think here. If Gerrymandering were made illegal on the federal level - which is in fact the goal of these orgs, would that federal law apply to every state in the union, including MD?
Like you can't both sides this, it's not possible. Extreme gerrymandering is primarily a Republican thing.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Because, unlike you and whoever feeds you manure, I actually read the decision.
You're right. There really is no equivalence here in regards to who the worst offender(s) are. Yet you're wrong about who the worst offender(s) are. The district maps in IL, NY (which has districts that aren't even geographically contiguous), NJ, and MD would be evidence that seriously contradicts your assertion, especially when the only time 'your team' whines about gerrymandering they're either pointing at NC or TX and misrepresenting things. Your team has double the number of states skewing the lines, and districts MD and NY are far more ridiculously stretched and shaped than those in NC or TX ever have been.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
No, because you are unironically making the same argument the NC GOP did, the one they lost 3 times with in court.
Keep in mind this was right around the time they got caught requesting racial voter data and amending their "voter ID law" in such a way that alternative IDs used by black Americans were all removed.
You are not fooling anyone Jubber.
Jubber, I get you're probably poorly educated and don't understand gerrymandering all that well, but you're actually wrong about the worst offenders.
By pretty much any of the metrics used to identify partisan gerrymandering, you're absurdly wrong:
I eagerly await your attempts to spin out of this.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Maybe because "the same argument" is actually the truth, you chowderhead. I know the party press insists it's not and you loyally follow the dictates of the party, but your skewed perception doesn't change reality.
It's super-cute that you think I don't also have Google and would be too stupid not to check and realize you just pulled the first item from a web search that supports your opinion while ignoring every other article. I don't need a survey from partisan organizations to tell me what I can plainly see just by pulling up a state's district maps, and I doubly don't need it when the organization in question is objectively wrong.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
And we're done Jubber. Trying to call actual academic papers on the subject "blog posts" and not even knowing what an Efficiency gap is seals the deal.
You are a fucking pathological liar and a moron.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
You keep saying this yet you keep responding.
LOL, "actual academic papers" have touted such idiocy as "gender as a spectrum." You're such an r-slur that if someone puts on a lab coat and says "I'm a scientist" you'd believe anything they'd say.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber do you unironically just have some kind of disability?
Why don't you explain to me what a mathematical formula that identifies gerrymandering has to do with gender?
Like, are you an NPC? Do you just run through various talking points randomly?
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
The only disability here is the one that makes you think taking everything
the church"scientists" say as gospel truth without any critical examination of it is either wise or intelligent. This is doubly true when the "science" in question is just the first thing you could find on google that confirmed your preconceived notions. Four (or more) years of college and you're incapable of forming an independent thought or even considering disagreeing with conventional wisdom.1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, when your entire worldview revolves around both siderism and just cycling through talking points you think cancels out entire academic fields of study, it's because you're poorly educated.
You tried to call a mathematical formula based on identifying gerrymanders for the courts "partisan" and seem to have unironically thought that invoking gender studies would someone make you right.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
"Both sides" is peak Reddit r-slur language that only means "how dare you point out my hypocrisy." You're the last person that should be complaining about anyone repeating talking points. Nothing you post is in any way an original thought. You're told what to think and follow along dutifully. If you want to buy bullshit because it makes you feel better that's your decision. Don't expect the rest of us to pat you on the head and tell you you're smart just because you repeat the "right things." Your entire post is "how dare you question
the churchScience!™" You're no better than a trained chimp.1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
No Jubber, both siderism is a classic coping tactic that tends to be used by extremists to create either a permission structure to continue said extremism or to create false equivalencies to justify questionable actions.
When you tried to both sides gerrymandering here - that's not a position supported by anything even approaching reality.
To put into perspective how absurd your claim is, look at the Republican 2010 midterm victory. They won the house vote by about 7%. They walked away with a 63 seat gain.
Now look at 2018, in which the DNC won the house vote by 8.3 points. They walked away with 41-43 seats.
Literally all of the data, all of the facts points to gerrymandering primarily being a Republican thing.
This is not a symmetrical issue. It's not possible to think that it is, unless of course you're delusional and have based your entire worldview on both siderism.
Jubber you keep spamming this shit like it's some epic own or something. This is something stupid people repeat to convince themselves their stupid views are on equal footing with actual education and knowledge.
Most thoughts are not "original." Nothing you have ever said is an originall thought. You literally just spam random twitter conservative talking points. Like, basing your opinions on actual empirical data and research is not bad.
It's absolutely better than basing your views on the shit you see twitter pundits repeat.
No Jubber, this is again, a common tactic idiots engage in. All science is meant to be questioned. But you aren't actually coherently questioning science, you're just repeating random bullshit in an effort to dismiss it without even arguing against anything being said.
This is science denier 101:
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
You should be a mason. Walls of brick are so much more chad than walls of text. I must have really got under your skin to get you to spend twenty minutes hammering your derangement into your keyboard.
You can post as many words as you like. It doesn't make you any smarter, and it doesn't stop you from following the herd and doing/saying what you're told.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber if you think that comment absolutely dismantling you took me 20 minutes you are high.
You again aren't responding to anything being said. All you've done is convince me you don't even understand what science is.
This weird conservative delusion has been beaten into your head to such an extent you think screeching about gender somehow makes mathematical formulas not valid.
1 [deleted] 2021-03-11
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-03-11
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-03-11
What is operation warp speed? Even the WSJ had to give Trump credit: https://www.wsj.com/articles/operation-warp-speeds-triumph-11614728552
You really do suffer from TDS.
2 Babybear_Dramabear 2021-03-11
What do you mean "Even the WSJ had to give Trump credit"? That isn't a high bar to clear they are the most right-wing of the 'serious' news sources.
3 Whaddaulookinat 2021-03-11
If the editorial board could reanimate William Joyce he'd get at least a weekly feature
-2 jubbergun 2021-03-11
The WSJ is right-leaning only in the way that every other neocon anti-Trump republican organization is. They're like the Lincoln Project (hopefully) without the pedophilia.
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Yeah I agree, anyone that doesn't get down on their knees and suck off the mentally ill info warrior himself isn't a real conservative.
Jubber you're a perfect example of why the GOP is a 3rd world political party at this point.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
I continue to be amused by the fixation with Trump getting blowjobs from people who claim to hate his face. Your veiled homophobia is noted, that doesn't make the WSJ any less neocon or anti-Trump. I've been hearing 'third world political party' and 'surely this is the end of republicans' since G. W. uttered the word nuk-a-lur. Yet they control the bulk of state governments and democrats have a very slim majority in both chambers of congress.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jesus Christ Jubber you're actually a cringelord. Did a conservative member of a literal anti-gay hate cult just try to accuse me of homophobia?
Really?
Either way, claiming WSJ is somehow anti-Trump is peak delusion.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
I didn't "try" to do anything. If you're using dick-sucking as an insult the inherent implication is that you think anyone who sucks dick is inferior. Given your misogyny (driven by your lack of success in the romantic department, no doubt) it makes sense when you do this while you're talking about women, but when the people you're talking about are both men it's clearly saying "you ghey" as if it's somehow a bad thing. I'm sorry you have to have such basic reasoning explained to you, but thinly veiled racism and homophobia drive the thinking common among people who adhere to your politics, so it's not surprising.
Only somehow who hasn't been reading WSJ could say this and believe it. The editorial board at WSJ are mainly corporatist neocons who were miffed that someone actually wanted to enforce immigration law since that would deprive their corporate patrons of cheap labor. The only time they showed any support for Trump was on their pet issues, like deregulation and feeding the military-industrial complex with expanded military funding. The rest of the time it was the usual whining about his tone and how he's a crass, philandering vulgarian, which are fair complaints given his tone and being a crass, philandering vulgarian, but the latter definitely outnumber the former.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber the fact you think larps and memes are real is hilarious. Like, you're just blatantly a poorly educated Trumptard that lives in his own little reality denial bubble.
WSJ is a right-wing rag. Posting real news sometimes doesn't change that or mean they're anti-Trump.
I also love how you think Trump is somehow anti-military industrial complex considering he funneled more money to the military than any president in modern history, ramped up drone stikes and bombings globally, and increased US troops abroad is just absurd.
This is probably the most damning evidence yet that you, yourself, are a magatard.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
That doesn't mean it was pro-Trump, genius.
Either I made a typo or you're more of an r-slur than I thought you were. I said one of the issues they backed him on was expanding military funding. For someone who thinks they're smart you certainly seem to have a lot of trouble with the written word.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
The website is pro Trump.
Didn't you make a comment somewhere here about how the WSJ was anti-Trump because he was against the military industrial complex? I don't know, maybe it wasn't you, I get you low IQ conservatives mixed up quite a bit.
Might have been dropper.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
As I believe I already said, on certain issues they were in alignment with Trump, but in general they were not Trump fans. You can keep saying "they're pro-Trump" all you want. That doesn't make it so. The statement I made about the military-industrial complex was in the post preceding the one in which you demonstrated that words are hard. So, yes, I made the comment, but as with most things you saw what you wanted to see instead of what was actually written.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
No, I literally saw someone I thought was you claim WSJ was anti-Trump because they wanted more war and military spending.
I don't even think it was in this thread.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
This is literally five posts up. Are you really that stupid or are you just truly are incapable of admitting error?
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, I am not talking about your comment.
I literally didn't even read your comment, I based that argument on something I thought I saw you saw a while back.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
So really that dumb and literally incapable of admitting error, got it.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, you are a mentally ill conservative that engages in some of the most extreme mental gymnastics I have ever seen anyone engage in.
You're here in another argument trying to deny not only state court rulings, but supreme court rulings.
You're legit too mentally ill to even deal with. I doubt you have any formal education even.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
If you're the product of "formal education" I'd likely be better off were you right, which you aren't, as usual. I can at least cite the rulings in question and summarize them. You don't know anything about them other than what you've been told.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
I am right literally every time I engage you. You are clueless.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
It's adorable that you continue to believe that.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
It's reality lmao. You are the most perpetually wrong person I have ever seen.
You legit just bounce from weird conservative spin to conservative spin and double and triple down on them.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Again, it's adorable that you believe that.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Jubber, when the entire basis of every argument you make is "but both sides" it's because you know you're wrong.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
So adorable I just want to squeeze your chubby little cheeks and give you a Werther's.
0 Babybear_Dramabear 2021-03-11
K but they aren't some high bar to clear. I'm sure they loved the tax cuts too but I wouldn't use them as some objective example of their merit.
2 Pewkie 2021-03-11
I mean are we really going to sit here and pretend that operation warp speed would have been done any differently by any other president? Idk about giving him credit for the bare minimum again. "Good job you somehow didn't fuck this one up like you do with every large Operation you have ever done in your life here's your sticker"
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
I honestly can't comprehend how you're this dumb goyim.
Like, it's legit mind blowing to me how you can be this poorly informed and uneducated.
For the record, the vaccine Trump tried to take credit for wasn't even part of "operation warp speed."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/11/10/trump-falsely-takes-credit-for-pfizer-vaccine-success-accuses-fda-and-democrats-of-stalling-news-until-after-election/?sh=4d0798d15c8e
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-03-11
You’re moving the goal posts. You said him and his admin did absolutely nothing. You are wrong.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
I said they did nothing of substance outside of speeding up the approval process.
Maybe learn to read before you come at me and you won't get fucking bent over like this.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-03-11
And you’re wrong. But I get it, you hate that big orange man so much that it would kill you to admit he did anything.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
No, I am not wrong. The vaccine he took credit for wasn't even part of the program you tried to cite lmao.
The only real thing warp speed even did was speed up production/approval, which has been a standard part of the US pandemic plan for years, before Trump even ran for office.
2 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-03-11
I get it. Orange. Man. Bad.
2 heretobefriends 2021-03-11
This is so funny. Did you come up with it yourself?
0 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-03-11
ORANGE
Attention caught. People look towards the speaker. They hold their breaths but do not notice.
MAN
Eyes widen. Pupils dilate. Lips purse into smiles. The anticipation, palpable.
BAD!!!
Raucous laughter. Intense applause. Babies are birthed immediately from wed and unwed expectants both. The whole world is dancing. All hopes have been proven true and just.
2 heretobefriends 2021-03-11
ORANGE
What?
MAN
Oh yeah, I remember him.
BAD!!!
I mean, yes? That's why we got rid of him. Isn't it time to move on, bud?
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Take a seat.
1 Doesnt_Draw_Anything 2021-03-11
I mean yeah, I thought that was obvious. Even the rightoids say that
1 CapitalistVenezuelan 2021-03-11
Rightoids need to get out 🤮
1 [deleted] 2021-03-11
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-03-11
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
First of all, Pfizer got a $1.6 billion contract for 100k doses (as your own source mentions in small print), whenever anyone tries to spin this as if it had nothing to do with the operation Warp Speed you should make a mental note that they suffer from TDS and their spin can't be trusted.
Second, yeah, Trump's main accomplishment is speeding up the FDA approval process, including outright threatening to fire its head: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics/white-house-fda-chief-approve-covid-vaccine-resign/index.html (more on that below).
Third, sure, it all seems like common sense, but so is not sending young people with COVID to nursing homes so that you don't have to falsify death statistics while raping aides, and yet... So I don't share your optimism about the counterfactual scenario where Trump wasn't the President and don't think that the credit for not being a total moron is undeserved. And that's just on general grounds, he also disliked FDA and regulation unlike Hillary so that sure helped, and who knows how the culture war front would be drawn in that alternate universe, remember when Pelosi went to hug people in the LA Chinatown? That was when Trump was already pushing hard for vaccines and shortly before the air travel ban, are you sure Hillary wouldn't virtue signal that Covid is no big deal instead?
Finally, here's a hot load of 'tism about Trump and FDA in particular:
Here's Der Spiegel on EU response:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-planning-disaster-germany-and-europe-could-fall-short-on-vaccine-supplies-a-3db4702d-ae23-4e85-85b7-20145a898abd
The article goes into great depth about how Europe is failing horribly relative to the US (not to mention East Asia).
So why is the US doing so well?
Lets go back to 2016. Trump picked Scott Gottlieb for FDA head, heavily criticized at the time. Gottlieb was a big proponent of FDA deregulation and getting drugs to market faster. In particular, faster approvals of generic drugs was a key policy of Trump to reduce drug prices.
Needless to say, our elites disapproved.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-fda-gottlieb-idUSKBN16H2AM https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/health/fda-gottlieb-background-qualifications/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/us/politics/trump-appointees-potential-conflicts.html
Gottlieb and others did push deregulation, including of random silly things.
Around 2019, Trump got interested in vaccines. He wound up passing an executive order based on the premise that production and scale matters a lot, efficacy matters less because the goal is herd immunity. The main target of the EO was flu vaccines and pharma companies shipping (as the FDA/CDC requested) small numbers of doses of high efficacy flu vaccines.
Also from a 2019 report from Trump's Council of Economic Advisers:
With this in mind, come 2020. Starting as early as Feb, Trump was talking about the need for a vaccine.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference-4/
In May (about 4 months after the first vaccine was created!) Trump started getting optimistic about it, suggesting it could be available by year end:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1260919777301798912
In May the establishment (FDA officials, the media, etc) was calling Trump a liar for suggesting the vaccine could be ready in 2020:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/05/899411652/fda-adviser-not-realistic-to-expect-a-covid-19-vaccine-in-2020 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-promises-coronavirus-vaccine-end-year-experts-tempe%72/story?id=70712823 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/coronavirus-whistleblower-bright-issues-stark-vaccine-warning-we-don-t-n1207056 https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/484702-health-official-says-coronavirus-vaccine-will-take-at https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-coronavirus-promise_n_5eab2740c5b635cbe76d2097
What happened?
Casey Mulligan - the leader of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers - has now provided some insight into what happened:
http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2020/12/how-economics-helped-end-pandemic.html
So after all this, it looked like Trump - and no other major politician - was actually the right person to handle COVID. He recognized that the bureaucrats at the FDA were the problem and did what he could to get them out of the way. I suspect that no other US politician would have done the same. From what Der Spiegel writes, it appears that no Euro politicians (besides perhaps Boris Johnson) were willing to either.
7 employee10038080 2021-03-11
You're such a giant fslur for typing all this just to defend orange daddy from online attacks from a pizza rslur.
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
I didn't type most of it.
6 employee10038080 2021-03-11
You typed enough to be an fslur
0 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
I type pretty fast tho and I enjoy dunking on Pizza, are sure you're not judging me from your own rslurred perch?
7 employee10038080 2021-03-11
Are you really dunking on anyone besides yourself when you serious post on rrrdrama
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Seriously though (oh no I'm doing it again) I always considered internet arguments against obnoxious pedants to be a training for the brain, a way to learn how to make really watertight arguments, which is good for reasoning about my own life with myself for example.
3 DuckSosu 2021-03-11
I'm sure I'm very late to the party on this, but after this display you have to be lester. Did you get banned or something?
0 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
I ran that account for more than two years, usually I retire them after I hit one. This is a bit unfortunate because look, I recognize you for example and have fuzzy warm feelings towards you, and I'd like to be recognized similarly by everyone, but on the other hand that's namefslurretry and actually being recognized the way it happened just now is way more awesome now that I think about it.
Here, have a bunch of nice songs!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcKqhDFhNHI Pumped up kicks 1066 A.D Cover in Old English (Anglo Saxon)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRIfsFefatg Pumped Up Kicks in Early Modern English
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b0dc70RRUU Abba - Gimme Gimme Gimme Cover in Attic Greek (warning/promise: EXTREMELY GAY and I'm not saying this lightly!)
0 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Yes.
0 jubbergun 2021-03-11
Serious posts are the vegetables your mom makes you eat with dinner so you don't grow up to be a male feminist. They're terrible, but they make you a better person.
-1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
And stopped reading. Getting a contract to sell doses is completely irrelevant.
The doses would always be sold, we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The bottom line is that vaccine had nothing to do with the US government, period, and Trump lied when he tried to take credit for it.
I could run down this entire comment and respond to what I can only assume are similarly retarded arguments, but I don't see the need to really.
Mainly because after your "climate change isn't real and models with no natural disaster forecasting are valid" meme, there's just no reason for me to assume you are even capable of operating in good faith.
You can try to warp reality and chant "TDS" all you want, you and your cult leader are low IQ bufoons with not one redeeming quality.
You are trash, you lost in a landslide election, and nothing you say is relevant.
7 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
You should've told Pfizer not to sign the contract then, since doses would always be sold and they wouldn't want to tie their hands regarding the price. What fools they were compared to you 😏
When will you learn that doubling down on a retarded thing you said makes you look twice as retarded?
-2 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
I'm honestly baffled as to how you're this dumb man. Conceptually it makes no sense to me.
You are unironically trying to give the US government credit for signing a contract for vaccine doses during a pandemic, as if that's some unique feat and display of competence.
I knew you were dumb given that climate change argument, but now you're just taking it to the next level.
The best part is no US funding went to that research and development. A company literally made a vaccine, without the US government, and donald Trump tried to take credit for it. Why? Because as long as morons such as yourself exist, being a conservative grifter is just too easy.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Well, as you can see it is rather unique seeing that very few governments managed to pull it off somehow.
And that was just one thing among many, the one you decided to make your hill to die on because obviously to your very big brain Operation Warp Speed signing a two billion dollar contract in advance didn't facilitate the development of the vaccine, Pfizer gladly signed it because they didn't know how to do business.
By the way, if you found other, better studies on the projected effects of the AGW on global GDP I'd gladly look at them, so far it's studies I found versus your gut feeling. Which, I don't know, maybe is how you argue with your other inbred relatives, but I have higher standards sweaty.
0 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
You are unironically a delusional moron dude.
To be clear here, tons of governments signed these deals, they just didn't run around trying to take credit for them because they aren't mentally ill:
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
https://ourworldindata.org/graphe%72/covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita
0 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
This has nothing to do with the absurd claim you made - that only the US had contracts for vaccine does. To put into perspective how stupid your claim is:
The current level of vaccination has nothing to do with doses secured.
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Quote me where I made that claim.
Lol.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
He won't. Claiming you said something didn't then arguing against his distortion is classic P-Shilly. I'm pretty sure he learned it from Snopes and Politifact, since that a pretty standard gimmick for them, too.
-2 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Is this fucking satire???
I say:
To which you respond:
It wasn't "few governments" basically every western country had contracts in place for vaccine doses.
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
"Having contracts" gets you a participation prize. Having good contract terms and a lot of doses secured is something that only literally half a dozen countries managed to pull off, and with a huge gap between them and also-rans. Now you might complain that Trump wasn't as good a negotiator as the Jews, but it's a bit of an impossible bar to clear, don't you think?
0 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Is this honestly a joke?
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Are you going to add three full paragraphs to this one line comment hoping that I won't notice and you'll have the last word?
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
You're not making real arguments. You're legit moving from "most governments didn't have contracts" to "they didn't have good contracts."
The best part of this is I know for a fact you've never read any of them nor do you have any idea how good or bad they were.
You're just retreating to this position because you got blown out of the water.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
That's a very uncharitable reading of what I said.
We are discussing whether Trump's USA got exceptionally good contracts (as a part of the bigger argument on whether Trump's USA had a good response to the pandemic) and the answer is "yes", no matter how much you will equivocate about other countries signing some contracts as well.
I know for the fact that you haven't read the Der Spiegel article complaining about the abysmal handling of provisioning COVID vaccines by the EU, because you told me that you did not. Maybe you should, seeing how I thoroughly trumped you here and the only good thing about it for you is the opportunity to learn the facts so that you could avoid being humiliatingly clowned on again.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
I give literally not 2 shits about a spiegel article dude. A vaccine is a vaccine.
The objective reality here is that your claim "few governments had a contract" is absolutely false, no matter what.
The fact you think I even give 2 shits about what some burger flipping 60 IQ drama tard thinks is hilarious.
You legit tried to claim climate change wasn't a big deal 2 days ago.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Yes, and the US vaccinated 30% of its population while Germany vaccinated 10%, despite Pfizer being, you know, lmao. Trump >> Merkel.
That's a very uncharitable reading of what I claimed.
Maybe your problem is that you just don't recognize it when a superior intellect totally wipes the floor with you? A variation on the blub paradox of sorts?
Not quite, I said that from what I know it's not a big deal for all OECD countries except Australia and, ironically, the USA. I provided two papers in support, and would be willing to provide more (including the 2017 or so UN report) if only you linked a single paper in response. Unfortunately you either smoked your brains out or were rslurred to begin with, so instead all I got was "these papers aren't perfect so my gut feeling beats them".
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
The contracts have nothing to do with vaccination rates.
Trump isn't even greater than a sewer rat. The guy speaks at a 3rd grade level, can't formulate coherent sentences, nor can he even do basic math.
Don't believe me?
1
It's literally word for word what you said.
I literally explained to you in detail why your claim was dumb. Trying to calculate long-term climate change economic damage without even accounting for natural disasters and global economic damage is fucking absurd.
I understand you being a poorly educated internet conservative requires you to believe dumb things, but even by those standards your claim is dumb.
This isn't a 'gut feeling."
A primary reason climate change is bad is natural disasters. Trying to calculate long-term GDP growth/decline without even thinking about natural disasters - and doing it on a fairly isolated basis (looking at specific countries as opposed to the global economy) is absolutely absurd.
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Lol.
https://www.reddit.com/%72/Poetry/comments/766h5v/misc_look_having_nuclear_by_donald_j_trump/
Of course I didn't mean just getting a contract, I meant getting good contracts, which literally a handful of countries managed, one of which is Israel and two of which are small oil monarchies, then there's the Trump's US and the Boris Johnson's UK, and then somehow Chile and Serbia. Everyone else fucked up.
I trust expert opinions over an rslurred internet rando, sorry. You failed to provide expert opinions supporting your rslurred internet rando point, so "they are not perfect therefore my rslurred internet rando gut feeling is better". I agree with your criticisms! Just not with what we should believe as a result.
Pizza, what's wrong with you, can't you google, can't you find a single legit paper supporting your doomer attitude? Did you google and found that paper and realized that you'd better not post it (though I probably give too much credit to your nonexistent selfawareness with this possibility)?
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
They literally do not.
Did you really just link some mangled Trumpian bullshit that proves he's low intelligence to counter my argument that he's low intelligence?
define what a good contract is, explain how the contracts the US got were good and the ones other countries got were not good.
The best part of this is you aren't actually responding to anything said. Just proving you don't know how to read a scientific paper.
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Trump is a warrior poet, this is obvious. You ignore this fact because you don't like his message. You laugh at his ability to go on multiple nested tangents and unerringly pop the stack to get back on track. You laugh at his ability to speak pure poetry to his followers because that's not "coherent sentences". You got your loss in 2016 because of that, you will get more if you continue to underestimate your enemies.
A good contract is that which lets you vaccinate about 30% of your population by March 10th, 2021. The US got good contracts because Donald J. Trump was a master negotiator. Most other countries got 10% at best. More questions?
I'm not sure if you really don't understand what I'm telling to you or just pretending. Just finding a paper that supports your position isn't telling you much, https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study . But not finding a countervailing paper and doing https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor is much worse.
Again, I can find you an official UN overview, I don't because why would I if the current score on papers is 2-0 in my favor, not even getting into the contents.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
We're done here. Have a nice day.
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-11
Thank you, you too!
1 [deleted] 2021-03-11
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-03-11
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2021-03-11
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-03-11
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2021-03-11
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-03-11
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 JeanPeuplu 2021-03-11
Seethe
1 wow___justwow 2021-03-11
Yes, it was. Why do you repeat this debunked lie?
Some tarded female scientist tried to say they weren't, but she was immediately corrected by the company spokesperson.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-03-11
Can you link me to the company spokesman saying that the Pfizer vaccine was part of warp speed in terms of development funds?
1 wow___justwow 2021-03-11
Nice strawman. I never mentioned development funds, I said they were part of operation warp speed.
I'll quote it again
Which means what you said here
is an obvious lie.
1 [deleted] 2021-03-11
[removed]
1 Sudokublackbelt 2021-03-11
TDS Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom/TDS®) delivers high-speed internet, TV entertainment, and phone services to nearly 900 rural, suburban, and metropolitan communities across the U.S. With more than 1.2 million connections, TDS is one of the fastest growing technology companies in the United States. Powered by fiber-optics and new industry-leading technologies, TDS delivers up to 1 Gigabit internet speeds and offers internet-protocol based TV entertainment solutions along with traditional phone services. TDS also offers businesses VoIP advanced communications solutions, dedicated internet service, data networking, and hosted-managed services.
0 jubbergun 2021-03-11
C'mon, man, that's not fair. There's more to P-Shilly than TDS.
P-Shilly suffers from other mental disorders, too. Don't focus on one to the exclusion of the others.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-03-11
I’ll try to do better next time.
1 AugustinesBitchBoy 2021-03-11
Jack Dorsey is public enemy #1 of Drama
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
Fuck that most of the drama the good stuff is on twitter the rest are agenda posts by right wing morons pushing their agenda.
1 jubbergun 2021-03-11
You'd think someone who looks like that would be a fountain of hate and discontent, but the man just fails to deliver at every turn.
1 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-03-11
H
1 fujiste 2021-03-11
that beautiful shot
1 HodorTheDoorHolder__ 2021-03-11
He’s doing everyone a service with this statement because he’s telling his followers that COVID isn’t a hoax and you won’t be kicked out of the cult if you get the shot.
2 Leylinus 2021-03-11
He's always said the shots were legit. It was based Kamala and Biden that warned us about the dangers of the Trump vaccine.
3 HodorTheDoorHolder__ 2021-03-11
Oh I guess I misremembered it.
3 Leylinus 2021-03-11
Not your fault, everything gets memory holed these days.
1 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-03-11
It's crazy that the only one who can debunk fake news and will be believed by magatards is DDR. He created the perfect system for himself.
1 Lysis10 2021-03-11
This tweet is so dumb that I thought initially it was a libby posting it to make fun of him.
2 SecretSnack 2021-03-11
Wait, this is real?
5 Lysis10 2021-03-11
That's the great thing about pa. It totally sounds like him but it also sounds like satire. Both are believable. I didn't look into it. I'm sure someone else will let us know.
2 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-03-11
It's humorously ironic that we now cannot easily fact-check whether or not this is real
2 Lysis10 2021-03-11
lol that's why I don't even try. It seems plausible either way and now that code illiterate journalists use reddit posts as citations, you can't trust any news source.
1 employee10038080 2021-03-11
Honestly surprised he didn't put his name on gold letters on the white House
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-11
"I hope everyone remembers..." You know who talks like that a bitch.
1 AnnArchist 2021-03-11
thanks donny
1 BussySundae 2021-03-11
based tage