Barack Obama says Democrats need to avoid being a 'buzzkill'

1. Dude use that noggin and apply some basic common sense. What specifically did the Pfizer rep state? The rep stated that there was no studies done on the the efficacy of reducing the infection rate before approval. For your narrative to work it would imply that Pfizer published a fake study during the approval process and based off that fake study we were lied to believing that the vaccine prevents spread. Hence everyone not in conspiracy media bubbles already knew that any claim of reducing spread was merely in theory. Months later there were studies showing efficacy in reducing spread after sufficient public data but the study also showed it's effectiveness diminishing over time and that's when the discussion of boosters started.


2. We called them loony conspiracy theorists because they were and my first point in this comment explains why.

3. Conservatives made it a partisan issue. **** off. When I was a kid there was no discussion of this in a partisan light when my mom had to provide my vaccination history to my grade school or when I had to give my vaccination history to my college. This has been a thing for DECADES and it only got partisan when right wing conspiracy loons and grifters who understand being a contrarian is a easy money generator on platforms like YouTube started discussing it.

 

Funny because I actually liked Bernie in 2016 and wanted to vote for him. but with the way he conceded to hillary, among some other things, it rubbed me the wrong way. couple that with how blatantly biased the media/social media became

as far as crime, yeah it is definitely cyclical but you're not seeing what's behind this cycle. bail needs serious reform. in 2021, one third of the murders in Houston were committed by people out on bail for a violent crime that same year. when has that ever happened before? there are several stories about this if you care to look it up. it is a nationwide problem thanks to nationwide voting patterns in the urban cities that elected terrible judges and DAs. go look at the late 00s and early 2010s. why was crime not up then? in fact there was more crime in the early/mid 00s when the economy was better than it was once the recession hit.

you're confusing me with your strengthening law enforcement angle. where did I say we need to do that? what you're doing here is typecasting just because I disagree on other issues and it's why this country/world is ****. law enforcement needs serious reform too. police officers need better psychiatric training. all departments should have bodycams required. when they go to mental health calls a social worker should be present with them, etc. don't think just because I blame mostly the dems for this crime increase that all of a sudden I'm some bootlicker. I don't pick one side all the way down like I see people do here.

 

1. sure put all your trust in pfizer, the same company who has issued out the most wrongful death lawsuit money in history. the same company that has told us how many shortcuts they took for this rushed vax.

2. Yet months later repeat what the conspiracy theorists said and try to say "now that we have data..". nah man, I've seen this play out too many times. goal posts keep getting moved while conspiracy theorists from 2020 have been saying the same thing the entire time.

3. it was never really an issue until this year. you speak in such generic talking point terms. like how much research have you even done into this? still can't explain the huge increase in vaxxes on the schedule from the 60s to now. what benefit has this provided?

sure your Mom may have sent in your vax records but not everyone had to do that, especially if you live in a state like Texas or Colorado that allow personal choice exemptions...

 

Hllary Clinton supporters didn't invade the Capitol on January 6, 2017. In the 2018 elections there weren't a bunch of Democrat candidates campaigning on that Hillary Clinton was the rightful President, nor where there Democratic candidates for governor and secretary of state saying they wouldn't certify the next election if a Democrat lost.
This is Trump early morning after the 2020 election

This is Hillary Clinton the morning after the 2016 election.

 

This is relevant with the Alan Moore thread about the modern GOP being more fascist like. His deconstruction of hero worshiping and simple solutions "to solve crime" with heroic figures that beat up criminals shows how those sentiments can lead to fascist ideas.


Basically the reasoning for the GOP having clear set unified narratives that are easier to digest is precisely because their solutions are very simple and child like. Their morality is more defined in black and white and that makes things simpler.

 

but they did riot the streets of DC after he was elected. no, hilary supporters weren't hilariously baited into the capitol, but they also didn't have 95% of the media against them. besides are we really going to sit here and act like this is the first time the capital has been stormed? a whole bunch of unarmed boomers "causing terror". the biggest acting job I've ever seen but I bet you believe folks like pelosi or AOC when they act like they could have been killed.

but it's better to set fire to city streets I guess: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/i...re-anti-trump-protests-after-day-rage-n709946

seriously? literally a year later she was still questioning it:

plenty of other articles to choose from but what's funny about this article is: Hillary Clinton says she would not rule out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election if new information surfaces that the Russians interfered even more deeply than currently known.

"even more deeply than currently known" except now we know it was 100% false (people were saying it then too obviously but of course were censored)

 

1. I simply don't understand your logic here. When the vaccine was approved did phizer release a fake study that suggested reduced infection rates? This is verifiable. We can check this. If not than your narrative makes no sense. Look at all the online discourse about this bs. Every time someone is like "show me the data!". So you are telling me that you were dupped even though there were no studies at the time. How is this a conspiracy. Any poltician or Rep before the initial studies months after approval showed that it did reduce spread that claimed it might were purely saying inxa theoretical sense. The fact that there was no studies at the time is a giant giveway that your narrative here is bs. It only works if Pfizer released a fake study that mislead the public. How is it a shock and a gotcha that a recently Pfizer rep said that they didn't study for infection rates before approval? How? We always knew that.

2. Again we call them conspiracy loons precisely because of my first point.

3. Covid vaccines also has exemptions. But I guess I lived in a authoritarian state in the 90s in Sugar Land when my mom handed my vac record to the school.

 

Recounts, investigations, and even lawsuits are all fine and legal. Even impeachment is a legal under our system. It's not overturning an election though as since we stopped having the second place finisher become VP a presidential impeachment doesn't lead to the loser of the last election becoming President.

What is dangerous and leading to authoritarianism is taking extra legal measures to overturn an election. To trying to get states to just "find" votes. It's about trying to replace legitimate electors with fake electors. It's about trying to get governors and secretary of states to not certify elections even though they were conducted legally and there was a clear winner and loser. It's about trying to stop the counting of votes just because you happened to be ahead at that moment. And most of all it's not telling your voters to "fight like hell" to prevent the certification of an election after all legal means are exhausted.

This is the proper response to when you're exhausted the legal means to contest an election.


Not this.

 

Lol the fact that Donald Trump still is saying he won the election resulting in a third of GOP candidates in federal and state elections just flat out denying results kinda shows they were right to protest the direction of the country.


They weren't protesting the vote count. They were protesting the idea of someone like Trump being president. That's a natural reaction.

What isn't natural is a president claiming that they won the election and millions of votes are fake news and that all legal recourse has been spent to save democracy so we need to do... Something more. They were brainwashed into a fake premise that Donald Trump won the election.


People who protested Trump weren't protesting because they thought Hillary won. It's like if someone like Hitler got elected. I'm sure a lot of angry and frightened people would protest. But it would have nothing to do with believing that Hillary actually won the electoral college.

 

well that's not what clinton did. she continued to push a fake story about russia interfering. people knew it was fake and baseless back then, and that's been 100% proven now. don't act like one side is innocent and the other isn't. people gotta stop being dishonest with these politics frfr

you'll find any excuse to not blame democrats for anything. you're way too partisan man. hopefully folks like you understand that it is not all one sided. if not we can continue delving into the mess this country is in

 

And did Hillary Clinton tell those people to do that? Was she giving a speech on the Ellipse tellign them to "Fight like Hell" or one of her campaign lawyers talking about "Trial by combat?"

Also you can believe what you want about the make up of those on Jan. 6th. All the convictions piling up says pretty clearly who they were.

Sure she can question just like Yankee fans questioned the Astros 2017 championship it but did she go around claiming she was the rightful president? Where there are bunch of candidates in 2018 running saying they believe that Hillary Clinton is the president?
I don't recall Krysten Sinema or Mark Kelly having campaign rallies like this.

 

again you guys are just being real basic with this. so what some person in hungary invites conservates over. did all conservatives accept the invitation or something? and tucker carlson? he's another media firgurehead and son of goverment officials groomed for tv since a kid. people who follow anybody like that, whether they're on fox, msnbc, cnn, wapo, are IMO complete idiots. those tv people are being paid to rile you up, stretch the truth or outright lie, etc.

 

That wouldn't have led to her overturning the election and becoming President anymroe than the investigation into Benghazi could've led to John McCain becoming President. Also as noted investigations are legal.

Also John Durham who was hired by the DOJ to be special counsel to looking into the supposedly fake origins of the Russia probe has concluded that the investigation was legitimate and wasn't conducted out of bias. He could only muster 3 indictments compared to the 30 plush from the Mueller probe with only one conviction and two acquittals, no one serving jail time.

 

What does 100% proven mean?

Democrats and intellegence agencies made specific claims some are verified to be true. Hillary claimed that Russia funded a project to create troll farms that spammed American social media companies where the troll disguises as an American and spams memes and propaganda that disproportionately benefited one candidate over the other. This is not fake news. This is a real thing and I'm sure our government does it to other countries. It's relatively cheap and a effective way of ****ing things over for a foreign adversary.

Where the point of contention was whether Trump who benefited from Putin support for his campaign was merely a useful idiot or an active participant.

 

It's the Republican party that invited an authoritarian dictator. I'm not linking some shill on Youtube that gets controversial guests on his podcast for clicks. It was a paid for platform by the Republican party. I would assume that would mean the Republican party supports his beliefs and model for how a government should operate. If your claim is Democrats are authoritarian, wouldn't you think inviting an authoritarian dictator to one of their conferences would confirm your beliefs? Why is that not the case among the Republican party? What's with the deflection?

 

Bro the GOP party, the actual party invited him. They held their literal convention in Hungray. This isn't just Tucker Carlson who btw is one of the kost watched programs in the US so his rhetoric does have immense influence...

 

I don't really get how "staged violent coup to overthrow government" and "conceded on the night of the election" are hard to distinguish.. unless of course you're a Trumpist b**** in thrall to genuinely the least impressive person our Omni shambles of a political/institutional/media system has offered up to us in its entire history.

Maybe that's just me.

 

So you don't think there are any Republican fence sitters that need to be reminded that women's productive rights are at stake.

Democrats have had the economies going back 20 years and nothing is terrible about the economy now and Democrats are saying this yet for some reason you ignore that and just want to b**** about Democrats.

There is plenty of rebuttals to the GOP's bullshit.

You have no idea if there are any more votes gained on the abortion topic and talking about abortion is not just to gain votes, its to drive out voters to the polls and remind suburban women what's act stake.

 

Also pointing out that Victor Orban was the keynote speaker at CPAC this year. This is a man who has said he is against race mixing and Western culture is in danger of being overrun by "Asiatics". This is in 2022 and he was invited to speak in Dallas. Last I checked Dallas is pretty diverse with a lot of Asiatics living there.