Hodad

Two major problems with this thread: 1. She's disaffected, not disenfranchised. 2. The condition she describes goes back decades. There is a great episode of This American Life from ten or 15 years ago in which John McCain and Russ Feingold talk about the reality of money in politics, the unpleasant burden of constant, daily fundraising, and why laws to limit donations (bipartisan, no less) are so important. This was the whole point of McCain-Feingold and why the farking Citizens United decision was such an egregious disaster. Now it's a no-holds-barred arms race that DEMANDS that politicians cater to special and elite monied interests simply to compete and survive. For every arsehole who believes that corporations are people and that "money is speech" this is the reality you built. Fark you.

CouchPotato is a "dem minion"? Interesting theory.

That's almost a coherent response. I'm sure it's made sense in your head.

Don't be silly. Being a NY Times bestselling author is absolutely something to brag about. That's why the publisher mentions it in the marketing of every subsequent book--usually right on the cover. And making three million dollars as an author is pretty damn good. I'm not surprised that you don't people who would buy such a book, but my MIL has her memoir on the shelf. Plenty of other people read it as well. You're spinning up a very weird conspiracy theory here.

1. No, you really can't. You have no grasp of the matter whatsoever. 2. Though I occasionally type "lol" it's rare that something actually makes me laugh. Congrats! 3. Nobody was "forced" to vaccinate. And vaccines were relatively effective at reducing transmission, though less effective (as in all things) as new variants emerged. It made sense to keep the unvaccinated out of public both for their own safety and the safety of others. 4. No, again you are lying. "Almost all deaths" were not among the "60+ crowd." I gave you the goddamn CDC breakdown like an hour ago and apparently you've already memory-holed another inconvenient fact. Color me surprised. ETA: My extended family actually has COVID right now. We got it from a 16 year old whose parents decided not to vax or test. She gave it to her 77 year old grandmother as well. Some people are sick but functional. Some people have spent days in bed. I'm asymptomatic (knock on wood) likely due to a June booster for international business travel. Anecdotal, of course, but it lines up nicely with the data you pretend doesn't exist.

I think the OP should be congratulated. He's come up with a topic that builds bridges and fosters unity. People all across the political spectrum can agree that this subject is profoundly stupid.

You're right. Totally unfair. We should start having people stand trial in the jurisdictions in which the crimes were committed to avoid any appearance of bias.

Lol. She wrote multiple NY Times Bestseller books that did well enough to earn $3m, right? You must have very high standards for "doing well." And doing the work to earn money as an author is decidedly different, is it not, than receiving lavish gifts from politically interested billionaires? There is no evidence of Biden's corruption. There are tons of unfounded accusations from the Republicans, but like Trump's secret evidence of election fraud, nobody has actually produced anything.

No, she wasn't, goofus. There's nobody even empowered to do such a thing. She won the votes of the convention delegates to become the nominee. Anyone was welcome to throw their hat in the ring. They chose not to.

1. Good for you, Canada! Since you don't understand rates and can only speak to raw numbers, you must conclude that Canadian COVID is much less dangerous.🙄 2. Awww, your feelers are obviously hurt. That's a tough thing when feelings are all you have. If that were true of my IQ it would be terrible news for you. 3. Of course it's worth noting. When the elderly are prioritized for vaccination and vaccinating at a much higher rate it obviously skews the risk profile for the vaccinated cohort. You never managed to understand that either--also not shocking news. So sad that you've been repeating the same dumb shit for 2 years, looking at irrefutable data demonstrating vaccine efficacy and pretending like it doesn't exist. You incel trolls have a lot of free time though.

No, dummy, everyone has known all along that the elderly were at higher risk--we had that conversation multiple times regarding priority vaccination of the elderly. But it does not mean that the deaths were "almost exclusively" among the very elderly. That's (still) a lie. Of 1.14 million COVID deaths in the CDC database, about a quarter of those deaths were among people under 65. Yeah, yeah. Fark the data. Your feelings are all that matters. Well, your feelings and your phony narratives.

I gave him the same polling data last Thursday. 🤷‍♂️ He definitely "doesn't want to listen."

Oh, he's already been shown that data. He doesn't need data. Fark data. He's got his feelings!

Bless your heart. Watching Dr. Oz for scientific content is like watching Alex Jones for news. Like magic, the puzzle pieces of your alarming condition (and impeccable judgment) are starting to align!🤣

If you've "read everything about the case" then you have no excuse for being dishonest here. You made the implication that the FDA loss on appeal vindicated claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID. That is false. The decision has nothing to do with efficacy. You've been advised. If you continue to make that argument, you're simply lying.

Great. No candidate was appointed. 👍

Again, you are attempting to use the decision in this case, which in no way addresses claims of efficacy in treating COVID, to imply that the doctors bringing the suit were vindicated in their claims of efficacy by this decision. What you're doing is completely dishonest.

Noooope. Your post is dishonest. Read the article you linked. The FDA did not lose the suit because ivermectin is demonstrably effective in treating COVID, but rather because an appeals court ruled that the FDA is not a physician and should not post to social media directives that might constitute medical advice. The FDA chose not to invest resources in defending years-old social media posts with an appeal.

This is my new favorite quote. OMFG! 🤣🤣🤣

That's not remotely an analogy for what I said. Nor is it reflective of the data. You're literally trying to claim that a mitigation that reduces hospitalization 5x+ and death 5x+ is useless. It's hard to believe someone can be that stupid, but you're committed to proving it.

I don't know about blind, but you're clearly semi-literate and, indeed, very stupid.

Lol, if by "apologist" you mean data that clearly shows that you are--and have been for years--dead wrong about vax efficacy then sure. And it's not even new data. You simply reject information that destroys your phony narrative. And, BTW, the "bottom line" is that fully--and even partially--vaccinated individuals were dramatically less likely to be hospitalized or to die from COVID. That's a fact not just in Canada, but worldwide.

Yeah, didn't do anything! 🤦‍♂️

You can't stop responding, but clearly (as always) have nothing to say. Time to turn in the keys, gramps. You're hopeless. Jeebus.

Of course she should. Everyone (correctly) felt a sense of moral outrage for a moment. Then they figured out that this has implications for the bought-and-paid-for Clarence Thomas and they quickly rearranged their morality. 🙄