There is a controversy developing in North and South Dakota where The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is prioritizing speakers of its native languages for its COVID-19 vaccine distribution. The tribe insists that it wants to protect those who can preserve its language. However, that is the imposition of a language criterion over those categories set out by the CDC for health workers, the elderly and most at risk individuals. The clear import is that prioritized individuals under the CDC guidelines could become infected and die because of the desire to protect those viewed as greater “assets” to the tribe.
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation Tribal Chairman Mike Faith was open about the tribe’s priority given those with the language capability: “It’s something we have to pass on to our loved ones, our history, our culture our language. We don’t have it in black and white, we tell stories. That’s why it’s so important.” Tribal Health Director Margaret Gates added that Standing Rock’s native speakers are the “most important asset to our tribe and people because of the language.”
The numbers involved in this controversy are small. Only 300 people living on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation are fluent in the native Dakota and Lakota languages.
However, the tribe is using the vaccine supplied by the federal government for free to protect those citizens deemed more valuable “assets.” The question is whether it is appropriate or even legal for states or tribes to use a language criteria to prioritize certain citizens over others.
Federal and state laws do apply on Indian reservations despite their status as self-regulating states. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court rejected the claim of exemption of tribes from the federal criminal prohibition on the sue of peyote from the general application of its criminal laws. In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988), the Court refused to bar the federal construction of a road through a site in a national forest that was sacred to Native Americans.
Conversely, in Morton v. Mancari (1974), the Court upheld hiring preferences given to Indians within the Bureau of Indian Affairs as allowed under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. There is also Talton v. Mayes (1896) where the Court declined to apply individual rights protections to a tribal proceeding.
Putting aside the application of such individual rights to tribal decisions, there remains the unassailable right of the federal government to dictate the distribution criteria for tribes. Fortunately for the tribe, the “recommendations” on priority do not appear to be hard and fast rules. On Dec. 1, 2020, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that health care personnel and long-term care facility residents be offered COVID-19 vaccination first (Phase 1a).
The federal government should be clear on issues of prioritizing “high value” citizens. Imagine if a state like New York made such a decision based on the cultural contribution of certain races or groups. The high risk members of the tribe expected reasonably that they would be afforded the same status of others receiving the federally approved vaccine.
That is why this could present an interesting lawsuit for an injunction. That seems unlikely at this point but it could bring greater clarity to some of these constitutional and quasi-contractual issues.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/ron-paul/the-great-reset-is-about-expanding-government-power-and-suppressing-liberty/
The ‘Great Reset’ is about Expanding Government Power and Suppressing Liberty
World Economic Forum Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab has proposed using the overreaction to coronavirus to launch a worldwide “Great Reset.” This Great Reset is about expanding government power and suppressing liberty worldwide.
Schwab envisions an authoritarian system where big business acts as a partner with government. Big business would exercise its government-granted monopoly powers to maximize value for “stakeholders,” instead of shareholders. Stakeholders include the government, international organizations, the business itself, and “civil society.”
Of course, government bureaucrats and politicians, together with powerful special interests, will decide who are, and are not, stakeholders, what is in stakeholders’ interest, and what steps corporations must take to maximize stakeholder value. People’s own wishes are not the priority.
The Great Reset will dramatically expand ‘ the surveillance state via real-time tracking. It will also mandate that people receive digital certificates in order to travel and even technology implanted in their bodies to monitor them.
Included in Schwab’s proposal for surveillance is his idea to use brain scans and nanotechnology to predict, and if necessary, prevent, individuals’ future behavior. This means that anyone whose brain is “scanned” could have his Second Amendment and other rights violated because a government bureaucrat determines the individual is going to commit a crime. The system of tracking and monitoring could be used to silence those expressing “dangerous” political views, such as that the Great Reset violates our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Great Reset involves a huge expansion of the welfare state via a universal basic income program. This can help ensure compliance with the Great Reset’s authoritarian measures. It will also be very expensive. The resulting increase in government debt will not be seen as a problem by people who believe in modern monetary theory. This is the latest version of the fairy tale that deficits don’t matter as long as the Federal Reserve monetizes the debt.
The Great Reset ultimately will fail for the same reason all other attempts by government to control the market fail. As Ludwig von Mises showed, government interference in the marketplace distorts the price system. Prices are how information about the value of goods and services related to other goods and services is conveyed to market actors. Government interference in the marketplace disturbs the signals sent by prices, leading to an oversupply of certain goods and services and an undersupply of others.
The lockdowns show the dangers of government control over the economy and our personal lives. Lockdowns have increased unemployment, caused many small businesses to close, and led to more substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide. We are told the lockdowns are ordered because of a virus that poses no great danger to a very large percentage of the American public. Yet, instead of adopting a different approach, politicians are doubling down on the failed policies of masks and lockdowns. Meanwhile, big tech companies, which are already often acting as partners of government, silence anyone who questions the official line regarding the threat of coronavirus or the effectiveness of lockdowns, masks, and vaccines.
The disastrous response to Covid is just the latest example of how those who give up liberty for safety or health will end up unfree, unsafe, and unhealthy. Instead of a Great Reset of authoritarianism, we need a great rebirth of liberty!
Dr. Ron Paul, MD
Thank you for sharing this TK. The same people that will dismiss Ron Paul are the same people that believe JT is a Trump and Fox News fanatic. Both of them speak truths that should be self-evident, but tragically, we’ve reached that tipping point where the majority cannot determine truths on their own. Instead they rely on others to do that critical thinking for them.
The Sioux can do as they want on their reservation.
Jeeze, JT…
I ask a question, and anybody can answer.
does the Sioux language use gender neutral pronouns?
if not, are they rushing to change it, just to please feminists?
Saloth Sar
You should learn how to search the web for answers to your questions.
It’s a rhetorical question.
He asked two questions. The second might be rhetorical, but I doubt the first one is. The first one indicates that he’s never looked up pronoun use or absence in the Lakota languages most common among the Sioux. If he’s bothered looking up an answer to the first one, he’d realize that the second is ignorant rather than rhetorical.
The Goose that lays the golden egg, is the Rez casino.
Sioux language is irrelevant. If you are a high roller & show up at the Standing Rock “Prairie Knights Casino” with a suit case loaded with about $500K cash, then You’ll be given VIP treatment.
good for the Sioux. they take their tribe seriously. and they have a quasi sovereign status that allows them to ignore certain federal laws that would make that illegal for any of us to try
think hard on that folks
Saloth Sar
The GA Supreme Court responded to their appeal –
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-georgia-elections-electoral-college-3e59015ec63cfd38920380248ae7caad
Your file doesn’t contain any affidavits.
What is the point of that? A lame attempt to prove that there was no election fraud? That story is 3 weeks old.
An attempt to discredit affidavits that allege election improprieties and fraud? What does that appeal have to do with affidavits? The GA SC rejected the appeal on the grounds that: “petitioners have not shown that this is one of those extremely rare cases that would invoke our original jurisdiction.”
Such posts add to the rational suspicion that the election was crooked. (There are countless such posts on this blog, and countless such stories in the media.) You keep ignoring, misrepresenting, and telling half-truths about the claims of election improprieties — and about what has and hasn’t been proven by recounts, et al.
Those misrepresentations and misdirections make it look like you’re hiding something — and don’t want us to look somewhere. If you want us to think that Biden won fairly, then don’t “massage” the truth. Four years of “the ends justifies the means” is what got you into this mess, in the first place.
It was a response to John Say’s January 4, 2021 at 12:57 AM comment. He’s the one who introduced that court case. I don’t know why my reply posted as a stand-alone. If you look at it in context, you’ll understand my comment about the affidavits.
I haven’t “massaged” any truth. It’s truly bizarre for you to suggest that linking to a court ruling is massaging the truth.
“It was a response to John Say’s January 4, 2021 at 12:57 AM comment.”
Oh. In that case, never mind. (Unfortunately, there’s no “delete” comment function here.) You’re right: context matters.
My “massage” comment still applies — but, apparently, not to you.
Yes, you have “massaged” the truth.
You want us all to beleive that the court filing linked – is not only purportedly lying in its assertion of fraud. But lying in that the pleading itself claims to have affadavits and other evidence attached.
For you – because scribid did not scan the attached evidence – it must not exist.
You are making a very stupid argument.
There is a world of difference between the evidence of fraud is insufficient to prove the election results were altered, and there is no evidence at all.
The latter claim means you are either stupid or lying or both.
I doubt given the number of claims of fraud and the scale of many of those claims that the results were legitimate.
But I could be wrong. A proper review of the actual records could find that the fraud was small.
But pretending there was no fraud is just stupid – or deceitful.
And pretending that the efforts to thwart inquiry are not themselves lawless is worse.
Biden should have come out on Nov. 6 and said – lets check everything – lets check signatures lets check that the machines are counting correctly. Lets look into every allegation and let the chips lie were they fall.
That had a risk – the margin of victory is very narrow and a proper inquiry could have cost Biden the election.
But it would also be the act of a true leader seeking to unify the country.
Had such inquiry confirmed his victory – had little consequential fraud been found.
This democrat desire to have Biden as a unifier would have been compelling – and the election would have legitimacy.
Because Biden – and election officials everywhere have fought against inquiry tooth and nail
That further undermines what little trust their is in the results.
If Democrats actually beleive Biden won – they would be willing to put that under a microscope.
But you do not beleive Biden won.
You are desparately trying to block efforts to discover wht you know or suspect to be the truth.
“For you – because scribid did not scan the attached evidence – it must not exist.”
What a ridiculous assumption on your end. I assume it exists. My point was simply that you still haven’t linked to it, and unless we look at the evidence itself (not second-hand descriptions of it in the motion, or third hand descriptions by you or others), we can’t determine whether it’s reliable.
“You want us all to beleive that the court filing linked – is not only purportedly lying in its assertion of fraud. But lying in that the pleading itself claims to have affadavits and other evidence attached.”
No, I don’t want anyone to believe that. That’s just more of your faulty imagination projected onto me.
Every time that you imagine you can read someone’s mind, you should think to yourself “why do I imagine this? I know that I can’t actually read anyone’s mind.”
“pretending there was no fraud is just stupid – or deceitful.”
Except that I’m not pretending there was no fraud. I’m saying that you need to link to the actual evidence so we can see what it says.
You can tell me “you do not beleive Biden won” and all this other nonsense a million times, but it still won’t be true.
Every time you are inclined to pretend that you can read someone’s mind, you should remind yourself that you cannot read anyone’s mind, and it’s unhealthy to pretend to do it.
““For you – because scribid did not scan the attached evidence – it must not exist.”
What a ridiculous assumption on your end. I assume it exists. ”
Are we beyond the stupid claim that there is no evidence of election fraud ?
We can have a debate about the specific evidences, each of their strengths and weaknesses.
But I can I take your comment as abandonment of the claim that no evidence exists ?
“My point was simply that you still haven’t linked to it”
Great. We can dispense with that – I am not required to prove anything to you. I am not required to provide anything to you.
The same is true of you – But for one thing – you have a long track record of misrepresentation and worse you are posting as anonymous which merits no credibility.
You are obligated to provide proof if you wish to be beleived.
To be clear – that is NOT a universal standard.
If I constantly make a fool of myself and spread nonsense like the collusion delusion or that the Hunter Biden story is russian disinformation. than I to an not entitled to be accepted without proof.
“unless we look at the evidence itself (not second-hand descriptions of it in the motion, or third hand descriptions by you or others), we can’t determine whether it’s reliable.”
Actually false.
Direct observation is prefered, but this is not a binary. It is an ethical as well as criminal or civil violation to misrepresent evidence in a petition. Descriptions in a motion are inferior to direct observation – but not by alot.
Just as I bet my credibility on what i assert but do not prove – and my credibility is the guarantee.
The same is true of you – except that your credibility based on past misrepresentations is a poor guarentee.
Finally – you are free to go looking for all these affadavits and other evidence.
Or you can keep claiming they do not exist.
If you were to venture so far – I strongly suspect that many of these claims will prove weak. But there are now thousands of them, and only a few – in some instances only one has to prove strong to require that Trump prevail.
And even some of the weaker ones.
Lets assume that only 500 duplicate ballots were scanned – we should not decretify and election over that.
But we absolutely should investigate. and if possible prosecute and convict.
And more important still we should redesign our election systems so that is not possible – which is not that hard to do.
“No, I don’t want anyone to believe that. That’s just more of your faulty imagination projected onto me.”
Please read your own posts. It is only because the we have one petition which undeniably has attached evidence and trying to argue it does not requires beleiving the judge is an idiot that you are no longer selling this garbage that there is no evidence.
“Every time that you imagine you can read someone’s mind”
I am reading your words – not your mind.
““pretending there was no fraud is just stupid – or deceitful.”
Except that I’m not pretending there was no fraud.”
Can I nail you down on that ? Are you accepting that there was fraud ? And the only question is the scale ?
“I’m saying that you need to link to the actual evidence so we can see what it says.”
You have no ability to search the internet for yourself ?
I would think that election fraud is something you might want to know about.
BTW while i think Fraud is more common place by democrats, that is not the same as all fraud is by democrats.
Either we secure our elections or you can expect significant Republican fraud in 2022.
Partly because there are only two ways to combat fraud – end the possibility – or match it.
Partly because what is good for the goose.
Republicans are overall more moral than democrats – democrats particularly those on the left have no moral foundations.
But most republicans are NOT paragon’s of virtue.
I think it is absolutely despicable that Mueller prosecuted and convicted Manafort and Stone for non-crimes.
That does not mean I think either are decent people.
Hunter Biden is not a decent person either. He may or may not be a criminal – mostly he is just a bit worse than Manafort.
But I likely would not convict him of Money laundering – Tax fraud – maybe. We will have to see the evidence.
Influence peddling ? Never.
But I would have no problem convicting Joe Biden of abuse of power for personal gain.
Hunter;s involvement in Ukraine required VP Biden to remove himself from matters touching anywhere near his son.
That is a serious ethical violation. It is illegal – though not a crime.
Actually interfering in the investigation of Burisma where his son was engaged in influence peddling – that is a crime.
There is nothing the left has claimed that Trump has done that reaches that level.
“You can tell me “you do not beleive Biden won” and all this other nonsense a million times, but it still won’t be true.”
Of course it is true – It is always true that I beleive something that I beleive.
For me even more important than all trump’s claims of fraud are that the election was not lawful.
Of the contested states the only one that does not bar mailin ballots in its state constitution is NV (maybe).
Without changing the constitution these states holding elections via mailin ballot was unconstitutional.
All those ballots must be thrown out.
Constitutions are supposed to be absolute. If we do not enforce them – even when that is painful, then we are lawless.
That argument should have been the strongest and absolute in every court. It alone should have been the end.
In all instances mailin elections were challenged BEFORE the elections. The courts should have interened then.
The blame for the lawlessness of this election rests many places – our courts, democratic governors, some republican ones.
and some republican legislators. I do not care much for blame. I do care about not repeating this fiasco.
One of the big problems I have with you – is that you do not have a problem repeating this – so long as your side wins.
As I said – those on the left have no morality. The ends justifies the means.
Had Trump won with 1/10th the allegations of fraud by republicans as there is regarding democrats – the country would be burning right now.
Nor is your demand for proof to the absolute highest standards credible. See we have been here the past 4 years – where any rumor about Trump was considered rock solid evidence.
Again – the ends justify the means.
And my health is fine.
John Say types page after page of BS pontificating no one will read and claiming election fraud, but no links or quotes.
Here’s 2 for you John.
Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Election Official refutes the false allegations against his state’s election point by point with data and a link to videos and more data. Go to the 4 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/zLYugNRVLiQ
Here’s the site with videos and more data.
https://securevotega.com/factcheck/
I can not play the specific video you purportedly linked.
But at the site you linked to all the videos purport to be evidence there was an actual water leak and clean up – continuing until 8:32 am.
Maybe True – maybe not.
It does not change the fact that there is both video and testimony from numerous witnesses – including the media,
that observers were chases out. and vote counting continued through the night.
Was the water leak real ? Another lie ? who knows ? Who cares ?
Vote counting continued without observers in violation of GA law through the night.
Not only does video and testimony confirm that – but the computer reporting of vote counts confirms that.
I would further note we have had lie upon lie from these people regarding this event.
First there was a pipe leak – and everyone was asked to leave – then – no, no, no that did not happen – no one was asked to leave,
then when multiple press accounts confirmed that everyone was asked to leave – we get a new story – there really was a leak and no counting took place.
Except there is lots of evidence that is just another lie.
You do not seem to grasp that the more these people lie – the less credible they are and the more likely fraud is
There’s nothing wrong with the video link you toad. The liar here is you as you continue to spout unsubstantiated accusations . You need to view the video since it is the Georgia State Election Official specifically answering your charges. If you need help operating your computer, ask a younger family member. You are not worth another word until you listen to someone addressing your specific “concerns”/
“There’s nothing wrong with the video link you toad.”
I did not say there was. Only that I was unable to play you link.
“The liar here is you as you continue to spout unsubstantiated accusations ”
What false accusation have I made.
What unsubstantiated accusation have I made ?
You talk about evidence and then spout vague evidence free claims.
“You need to view the video”
No I do not “need” to do anything – typical leftist nonsense.
“Since it is the Georgia State Election Official”
Maybe i will, maybe i won’t – but you do not seem to grasp that merely by saying “a Georgia state election official” – you have already lost the debate.
You are facing oppositon right now. You are facing it from wing nuts making stupid claims, as well as from far more credible people making credible claims – but they all share one thing in common – a justifiable lack of trust for the institutions of this country that have failed them and lied to them.
We had a debate here a day ago over whether Act 77 as amended had a judicial override. IT DOES NOT. But the PA Dept state website which you or some other poster cited explicitly says that it does.
When the PA Dept State LIES about the law – why should they be beleived about anything else.
We have a debate about the GA recount – absolutely Raffensberg made big promises – this would be a full thorough audit, hand recount, recanvas all in one. Yet, we found out it was not. Not only did they use the same equipment to do the recount that was being questioned, but they did not even rescan the images – they used the post adjudication images.
I do not know what the truth is in Georgia – but I know a lie when I see one. And I do not trust people who have lied to me,
So why am i supposed to Trust Georgia Election Officials ?
Why am I supposed to Trust people who told not just republican observers to go home that counting was stopped, but also the press.
And we know from security camera video it did not.
“specifically answering your charges.”
They did not specifically answer my charges and by lying earlier they lost any expectation that I would listen to them in the future.
“If you need help operating your computer, ask a younger family member.”
JF – I have no problems with technology. I have written a network driver that is in the distribution linux kernel source.
I kind of have a clue about computers and technology. For much of the Trump administration I was a consultant to a major US memory manufacurer was was looking to put the rought equivalent of a Raspberry PI 4 on a single chip and sell it for $0.50.
I am cofounder of a company that is working to impliment associative memory in hardware – 40% of all computer time is spent looking up information. A hardware implimentation of associative memory would almost eliminate that overhead.
Do you know what AEGIS is ? I consulted for a defense contractor on a small part of that
Do you know what a Predator is ? I have a small part of that too.
“You are not worth another word until you listen to someone addressing your specific “concerns”/”
Because you say so ? Do you even know what you are saying ?
Lets try to make something clear – Those you think I MUST listen to – are not trusted – not because I say so.
But because they have been wrong about so much so often that large portions of the country no longer trust them.
According to Pew only about 20% of people trust government.
According to Gallup only 9% of people trust the media. and only another 31% sometimes trust the media.
I keep telling you over and over – Trust is something that must be earned and that is easily lost.
When you tell ANYONE that the “need” to listen to someone else – that is no different from saying that we are required to trust people who have by their own words and actions lost our trust.
“You are not worth another word until you listen to someone addressing your specific “concerns”/”
You have never been worth another word. I may be responding to you – but you are not my audience.
I have never expected you to be influenced by facts, logic reason.
“You are obligated to provide proof if you wish to be beleived.”
And so are you.
“can I take your comment as abandonment of the claim that no evidence exists ?”
How can I abandon a claim I never made? When will you stop pretending that I claimed that?
I’m not going to bother reading the rest of your wordy reply. Unless you link to the affidavits, there’s nothing for us to discuss.
““You are obligated to provide proof if you wish to be beleived.”
And so are you.”
False. I am not posting as anonymous – which has zero credibility.
I have not spent years selling delusional nonsense.
I have a track record of accuracy.
I can not compell you to beleive me – nor do I care.
But I have no burden to prove anything to you.
You do have a burden to prove claims to me – to anyone.
““can I take your comment as abandonment of the claim that no evidence exists ?”
How can I abandon a claim I never made? When will you stop pretending that I claimed that?”
You talk about word games ?
Rather than try to dodge and hem and haw.
Yes, or no – there was fraud and lawlessness in this election ?
If you say no – you make a mockery of this nonsense that I am pretending you said something.
If you say yes, we can move on to the scale of the fraud, and the right of the people to have trustworthy elections.
And I find it interesting that you just ignore arguments that you can not counter.
There to “wordy”
You don’t have a track record of accuracy, though you deludedly believe otherwise.
“I have no burden to prove anything to you. You do have a burden to prove claims to me – to anyone.”
Everyone has a burden to prove their claims. Anyone who says what you just did is a hypocrite.
“You don’t have a track record of accuracy, though you deludedly believe otherwise.”
This is not debatable. Reality exists. Neither your oppinion nor my oppinion of it changes reality.
You are posting as anonymous – you have no credibility – that is not intended as an insult. It is just a fact.
There is no single anonymous, so you have no real history to judge. We can try to guess which anonymous is which.
Sometimes we do sometimes we do not. But ultimately every single post of your can not be treated as from a reliable source – as each post must stand alone.
I presume that at one point you posted under some name, and that name eventually established a reputation, and that you switched to posting as anonymous for some reason.
People post under their actual name because that gives them credibility.
They have “skin in the game” – but that comes with some risks.
People post under a pseudonym because that too allows them to establish credibility – but the credibility is lower as is the risk.
A post as anonymous has no risk at all and no credibility at all.
That is just how it is. You are free to do so, but you can not change what that means.
I have been posting for years as JBSay, you can check my posts for years. You can know how accurate and truthful I have been.
As can pretty much everyone else. You can form your own judgement – though honestly, the judgement of anyone routinely posting as anonymous is pretty much meaningless. Others can form their judgements. Just as I have no power over your judgement of me – you have no power over the judgement of others of me. I have no doubt – that others such as yourself – and there are many here will conclude I am not credible. But I have no problems holding what I have said against the test of reality. At the same time, those more reality based can test what I have posted against reality.
“Everyone has a burden to prove their claims. Anyone who says what you just did is a hypocrite.”
No and that is not hypocracy. We do not stand before the world the same.
We are not equal. That is reality.
We are not created equal. Nor have we lived equally.
I have as an example testified in court as an expert witness. To do so my background, and my past accuracy is evaluated, and I am allowed to testify as an expert on some subject because I have the background and the track record to do so.
My point is when you post as anonymous you have exactly the same burden of proof every single time – you have no record to rely on.
There is absolutely no reason to trust you – and so long as you post as anonymous you can not escape that.
Each post you make stands on its own, and must be self proving.
I have tens of thousands of posts over a decade atleast that can be weighed to determine my credibility.
You and everyone else can weigh my past and determine if I am credible based on that past.
You can come to a different judgement than others – but you can not by mere assertion change that past record – nor can I, nor do I wish to.
It is not hypocracy to claim you have a higher burden of proof – it is a fact.
should you choose to post under a name – or a psuedonym. As likely you did in the past – you will establish a history a reputation and you will be judfed on that and your burden of proof will be higher or lower based on that history.
Again that is reality – not hypocracy.
Dude, you have to prove there is election fraud of significance if you want to try and overturn an election. Repeating BS does not rise to that level and it is on you.
“Dude, you have to prove there is election fraud of significance if you want to try and overturn an election.”
True – but not the starting point. The first requirement is to prove there is sufficient bases for an investigation – that burden was easily met.
And yet the left, democrats, election officials and the courts are actively engaged in thwarting any inquiry.
And what we have been able to demonstrate is not only that the election was lawless – but that in area after area the election was conducted incredibly badly.
It is not actually that hard to conduct and election by means that can be trusted.
We know know more about the way electronic vote counting is done, and while understanding the process is not proof of massive fraud.
It is certainly proof that as they currently are our election systems should not be trusted.
You presume the objective is to “overturn” an election.
First that is a deliberately deceptive expression.
I have TWO oibjectives – the first is the establish the CORRECT outcome of the election. Where there are actually three choices.
Trump won, Biden won, or the fraud and lawlessness make it impossible to know and the result is not conclusive.
The second one I have had for decades is to improve the trust in our elections.
Contra you and the left – that is not accomplished by sticking your head in the sand, being blind to allegations of fraud and actual lawlessness. It is accomplished by looking honestly at the system.
I strongly suspect large numbers of fraudulent mailin ballots – but I might be wrong. What I am not wrong about is that if we continue mailin elections – we will have ever increasing fraud.
We are seeing margins of victory so small that even fraud in inperson elections – the hardest form of election fraud, is not merely possible, but all too common and in all to often changes the outcome. The error and fraud rate for absentee ballots is an order of magnitude higher than in person, and that of mailin an order of magnitude higher still.
Narrow margins of victory REQUIRE extremely trustworthy elections – and we do not have that.
“Four years of ‘the ends justifies the means’ . . .”
Let’s try this from a different angle.
For four years, the media, sundry politicians, et al., were the boy who cried wolf. Now that boy insists: “Believe me. This time, I’m telling the truth. It was a fair election.”
Guess what. We know what you are. And we no longer believe you.
The file I linked does not – they are attached as exhibits.
Why do you think I care about another Court decision.
GA and the feds will get rid of every case they can – they are terified of the consequences of actually hearing an election fraud case. ‘
But GA specifically has a problem. GA law does requires an actual hearing on the merits of specific election fraud cases.
Thus far GA refuses to assign a judge to that case.
BTW your AP link does not identify the case – nor really say what was done.
The vast majority of cases thus far are TRO cases – attempts to block certification while cases on the merits proceed.
This is one of the problems with election law.
Trump suits before the election were barred – even where there was merit – because there was no actual harm yet.
And afterwards they are barred – because Trump should have acted before the election – which he did.
It is a very stupid shell game – that you are buying.
Ultimately there will be cases actually decided on the merits – long after any remedy is possible.
Then link to the exhibits. Your word is worthless to me.
Of course the article identifies the suit, as the Fulton County “case from Trump’s campaign and Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer.” You have reading problems. If you were following the GA cases, you’d know that it’s a reference to Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al.
If you want a list of all the post-election suits in GA with links to the main filings –
https://www.democracydocket.com/state/georgia/?by_case_type=post-election
You can read the GA SC ruling there.
“Then link to the exhibits. Your word is worthless to me.”
Are you arguing that the exhibits referenced in the petition do not exist ?
No.
I’m telling you to link to them so we can read them and see what they say.
Your incapable of doing an internet search ?
I’m quite capable. But you’re the one who made the claim about them, and as you just told me: “You are obligated to provide proof if you wish to be beleived.” That applies to you too.
“I’m quite capable. But you’re the one who made the claim about them, and as you just told me: “You are obligated to provide proof if you wish to be beleived.” That applies to you too.”
Nope – we have been through this before.
The burden of proof is not equal.
Those who have lied or misrepresented in the past – have a higher burden of proof that those with a record of accuracy and correcting errors.
Those who choose to post as anonymous – which is your right – are not entitled to any presumption of credibility – not even that of someone with no record at all.
You chose to post as anonymous – and it is a reasonable surmise that you are one of the purveyors of garbage over the past 4 years like the Biden laptop is russian disinformation or the collusion delusion.
You have earned your lack of credibility and higher burden of proof.
The site you link to notes atleast a dozen currently active GA cases.
I am not interested in any case from any court that did not conduct hearings on the evidence.
It does not “notes atleast a dozen currently active GA cases”. It notes 10 total post-election cases in GA, 5 of which are active cases.
If you’re not interested in any case from any court that did not conduct hearings on the evidence, it’s odd that you chose to introduce Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al., since that the court didn’t conduct hearings on the evidence in that case, as the lawyers for the plaintiffs screwed up their filings and it never reached the evidentiary stage. Why does Trump have such difficulty finding competent lawyers to work for him on this?
I am not going back, but I followed YOUR link. And more than 5 cases were listed as ACTIVE.
You’re wrong about that, whether or not you go back to look.
I decided to go back and read some of this.
I was particularly intrigued when YOUR site labeled on of the suits as filed by a “right wing group”.
That label is a clear sign of bias on the part of the site.
Regardless the wood suit challenged the monies – such as the millions contributed by Zuckerberg to SOME counties election efforts.
This is a clear violation of federal and state law. Private parties can “donate” money to government – but they have incredibly limited control over that money when they do. And they are pretty much barred from contributing to elections.
We can debate what the remedy should be – but this is not some “right wing” lawsuit – it should have been a no brainer.
There are myriads of legal and constitutional barriers to private contributions to election administration.
If you can not conceive of why doing so is incredibly dangerous you are an idiot.
The GA courts conclusion ? Never mind the merits – we think you sued the wrong party, and oh BTW there is not really a right party, so even though there are laws barring this – we the courts declare them effectively null and void – because we the courts have foreclosed any means of enforcing them.
Is this a decision you wish to defend ?
If the Koch Brothers and Adelson were plying election officials and pro-trump counties with monies in 2016 – do you think the left would have gone berzerk ?
I would have vigorously objected.
It is bad enough that big tech is censoring us, without having to contend with their buying election officials.
The funding of elections MUST be controlled entirely by government.
If Zuckerberg wants to put his thumb on the scales – he can contribute to the candidate of his choice.
Or he can give the state of GA a couple of million and let them dole it out to various counties.
Is this proof trump won ? No.
but it is something that never should have been allowed.
The government officials who accepted the monies for their counties – should never hold public office again.
LMAO. Of course the site is biased. They’re among the litigants. That doesn’t change the fact that they’re tracking which cases have been filed and which are active, nor the fact that they have links to all of the briefs and orders. It’s a useful resource despite their bias.
I have no interest in shifting the discussion to another case when you STILL haven’t linked to the affidavits for Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al.
“LMAO. Of course the site is biased. They’re among the litigants.”
“That doesn’t change the fact that they’re tracking which cases have been filed and which are active, nor the fact that they have links to all of the briefs and orders. It’s a useful resource despite their bias.”
Actually it does – you make alot of claims that things are facts. Some may well be, but all are not.
We can not tell if they track all cases, further because they spin their information we can not rely on it.
I doubt that they have altered the documents that they have linked to. But I have zero reason to trust that they have all briefs in all cases.
And their obvious bias means I can not trust that they do – merely because you say so.
I do not care that they are a litigant. I do care that they impose editorial comment on the claims of others.
We have those claims – let them speak for themselves.
The litigation challenging private disparate funding of elections has merit. Even the left used to argue that we should not allow government to be dictated by the wealthy. I do not know if the petitioner is “right wing” – but I know that he is right both on the moral claim and on the law. Remedy is a completely different problem – and been one of the largest problems throughout this election.
Myriads of litigants went to court BEFORE the election arguing that we should not do this or that stupid thing – and the courts dismissed those cases – because as the stupid thing had not occured, there was no clear harm.
Now after the harm has occurred often the same courts are dissmissing the same cases on the grounds that the only possible remedy is too draconian.
That failure belongs to the courts.
Those like you on the left keep phrasing this as overturning an election. Yes, that is all to often all that can be done when an election is conducted outside the law.
If there is no consequence to lawlessness – the lawlessness will continue.
We are seeing that in DC and other places now.
Those on the right are just as capable of “peaceful protest” as those on the left.
Those on the right are just as capable of ignoring the law during an election. Do you honestly think that it is not possible for those on the right to take advantage of the lawlessness they left has created ?
If as an example you are not going to validate the identify of mailin ballots – ANYONE can submit a ballot for anyone else.
In 2022 someone else may submit a ballot for you. How are you going to assure that your actual ballot gets counted and only that ballot gets counted ?
The thinking of those on the left is so incredibly shallow.
If Post marks do not matter – if deadlines do not matter – then lets just keep voting forwever.
We should strive to have a better election process than we do – and that is easily acheivable.
But we must enforce the actual laws that we have – even when we do not like them – because if we do not, how do we trust anything ?
“I have no interest in shifting the discussion to another case”
I do not care what you are interested in – you are constantly making these claims that you have some control of others.
“when you STILL haven’t linked to the affidavits for Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al.”
So ? I do not care what anonymous demands. The affadavits for this case and many others are all out there. You can find them if you want – I beleive there are over 1000 specific unique affadavits at this time. Some are direct observations of fraud. Some are indirect.
A few are likely erroneous. All are not.
Further much of the evidence is not in the form of affadavits.
We know as an example that 5 of the key states violated their own constitution. All of the contested states except Nevada have a secret ballot requirement in their constitution. Mailin ballots are not secret ballots.
That is a clear legal issue – not one of affadavits.
Yet, not a single court prevented these 5 states from going forward with mailin voting.
And you wonder why these courts have no credibility ?
The courts are the final authortity on the law – BECAUSE WE TRUST THEM TO BE. When they lose our trust – when they act outside the law and constitution – we do not trust them and the country is lawless.
We saw some of the consequences of that this summer.
We are seeing more now.
This is a solveable problem – Follow the law and the constitution – even when you do not like the outcome.
You can change the law and constitution – you can not fix it when the courts and government are lawless.
I did not use the case I cited as an example of a wise decision by the courts, but as proof there was evidence.
Most any case meets that criteria.
With respect to your claims regarding lawyer screwups.
First – few of these cases were decided on that basis.
Most were decided on standing or latches or similar – “the court is going to do everything in its power to avoid ever having to hear evidence” basis.
Second – election fraud sufficient to alter the outcome of an election should completely outweigh any procedural screwups.
Are you honestly claiming you are OK If Biden (or Trump should it have been reversed) wins as a consequence of massive fraud – so long as the lawyers challenging that fraud fail to dot their eyes and cross their T’s.
One of the issues this who sequence exposes is that we have a broken election litigation process.
Fundimentally an allegation of election fraud, is an allegation that VOTERS have been infringed upon.
There is no “right” of Trump or Biden or any politician to a fair election. The right to a legitimate outcome belongs to the VOTERS, not the candidates.
Election fraud cases are cases where the voters are the plaintiff and the state is the defendant.
And as the state has no rights only powers, the state has none of the traditional protections against inquiry.
The state has no 4th amendment rights as an example.
Where there is an allegation of electoral fraud – the standard of proof should be low and the state should be required to prove the lack of fraud that it is duty bound to deliver.
To be clear – this is not about winners or losers – I do not care that much about that.
It is not about candidates right to a fair election.
It is not even about voters right to have their vote count.
It is about citizens need to assure that the state has the consent of the governed – even if it does not have the consent of every voter.
The competent lawyers claim is quackery.
It is just more nonsense of judges to dismiss cases they do not want to hear.
It is always possible to attack the lawyers.
Are we still talking about the virus with the 99.99% recovery rate? That virus? What I say is, why should the Sioux start having rights at this late date? They already had their land stolen from them and most of their tribe exterminated, they should be used to the fact that they don’t count for squat. All hail the greater glory of the Coffee and Donuts Commission!!
Did you fail arithmetic?
About 20 million cases and over 350,000 deaths in the US. That’s ~1.75 deaths out of every 100 people who’ve tested positive. Just how did you come up with 99.99% recovery?
More than 1 of every 1000 people in the US have DIED from it already, and another 200,000 deaths are expected before it’s contained.
680,000 lives were destroyed in 2020 by selfish, self-absorbed, emotionally crippled and moral reprobates via abortion. That you fail to discuss the killing of these innocent, defenseless lives tells us how little you care about life, except when it involves a political ideology
I care about people. Embryos aren’t people.
If you think embryos are people, then you should be much more concerned about the millions of embryos that died after failing to implant or miscarriage.
When does an embryo become a person ?
People have different beliefs about that. Our laws generally say at birth, though some laws start earlier for limited situations, such as fetal homicide.
There are long discussions of the characteristics of personhood. Here’s an example –
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/ethics-and-personhood/
“People have different beliefs about that.”
I did not ask people – I asked you.
I have no problem with prolife catholics who oppose the death penalty. I can deal with prochoice advocates who support the death penalty.
I have problems with hypocrits.
“Our laws generally say at birth,”
Not exactly.
“though some laws start earlier for limited situations, such as fetal homicide.”
Really ? A fetus is a person for limited purposes such as homocide, but not if it is being aborted ?
Again i have problems with hypocracy – especially in the law.
“There are long discussions of the characteristics of personhood. Here’s an example –
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/ethics-and-personhood/”
I did not ask for a survey of the philosophy on the subject – I asked YOU.
When for YOU does killing an embryo become immoral ? Criminal ?
You were attacking someone else in a fashion that presumed this question has a clear and univerally accepted answer.
I am asking if you are capable of answering it yourself ?
The case numbers are meaningless.
Testing has not been done at near the same rates in the US over time even by each state.
You can not compare any data from anywhere using “cases” without massive amounts of adjustment.
It is near certaint hat actual case numbers are 3-20 times larger than reported.
Worse that error rate is not the same today as in July as in April.
The only reliable indicator of the behavior of C19 over times is the number of deaths – and that has a 10-14 day lag.
You can claim to expect whatever you want. The fact is that no predictions of any Experts have proven correct or even close to it.
And in point of fact the “lockdowns” have with near certainty made things worse and less predictable.
As another “expert” noted – “flatten the curve – and then what ?” Flattening the curve does not reduce the deaths or infections.
It reduces the daily deaths and infections in return for making the pandemic last many times longer.
It makes trying to understand the behavior of the virus near impossible.
And worse it gives it more time to mutate into something even worse.
In 2018 the US had 2.89M deaths from all causes during the year.
In Nov. 2020 the cummunlative numbers were on track to be BELOW the 2018 number and slightly above the 2019 number.
That means that nearly all C19 deaths are people who are already dying.
This BTW is also true of Pnuemonia and the Flu.
The last estimates I heard were that 94% of C19 deaths are people who were already terminal.
That means the actual additional deaths from C19 thus far are about 18K, not 350,000.
You must have failed arithmetic too.
The actual case #s cannot be 20 times larger than reported in the US, because they’re reported at over 20 million, and 20 times larger than that would be more than our entire population.
“According to preliminary weekly data from the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC), 2,926,129 people have died from all causes between January 1 and November 28 of this year.” If you don’t understand that 2,926,129 > 2.89M, your arithmetic understanding is even worse than I first assumed, and that doesn’t include the deaths in December.
You must have failed reading comprehension –
“It is near certain that actual case numbers are 3-20 times larger than reported.”
In what world is 3-20 always 20 ?
There is plenty of Data from CA, NY, Iceland, Germany, that in April and May the number of infections was off by a factor of between 10-20.
The error is likely smaller now – though it is still likely several times what is reported.
It is in theory possible to estimate the actual error rate at different times and adjust but that is very complex and highly prone to error.
Regardless Case Fatality Ratio’s are meaningless.
I didn’t say that it’s always 20. I said it can’t range as high as 20, so it was an innumerate mistake on your end to give a range that goes up to 20.
The quote comes from USAFacts (https://usafacts.org/articles/preliminary-us-death-statistics-more-deaths-in-2020-than-2019-coronavirus-age-flu/) and the CDC data source is https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-Counts-of-Deaths-by-State-and-Select-Causes/muzy-jte6 Browse to your heart’s content.
Thank you – I do not care about USAFACTS.
I DL’s the CDC data and it is troubling – meaning the data is not self consistent.
It is also not consistent with prior CDC reports.
I will have to look further at it.
Please provide your CDC source link.
You still do not seem to grasp that you are not trustworthy.
Further the number I found reported in November was below 2.89.
There is a controversy developing in North and South Dakota where The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is prioritizing speakers of its native languages for its COVID-19 vaccine distribution. The tribe insists that it wants to protect those who can preserve its language.
So what’s the problem?
It makes perfect sense to me.
I’m pretty seasoned at letting people be autonomous and I don’t feel that what the Sioux propose needs to be vetted by me. However IF they wanted my opinion, I would think it’s very reasonable for the reasons they claim. Also, why don’t they have enough for everyone in the tribe? They are vulnerable, and if we are able to send it around the world, let these folk have all they need. I know I’d be happy to give anyone my share.
agree
There are about 8B people in the world.
There are 330M in the US alone.
The US has received 40M doeses from Pyzer and 40 M from Moderna. The vaccine requires 2 doses.
The US will receive about twice that number in January and probably twice again in February.
That is not counting the AZ vaccine which is single dose and will be approved shortly.
We have given out 2M so far. That is absymal.
Even a few days delay on this is criminal. The early impact on deaths and infections will be much greater than the late impact.
i.e. it will take far fewer vaccinations to reduce the death rate by 75% than it will to reduce it to zero.
It is imperative that we vaccinate as many people as fast as possible.
It is better to run out of vaccine than to have any in surplus.
The slower we vaccinate the more people die.
If we can not vaccinate the “most vulnerable” immediately – vaccinate ANYONE who wants, until we run out.
Unused or delayed vaccinations mean dead people.
It is that simple.
John say,
Thanks for showing a lot of people what a complete idiot you are when it comes to vaccines, Mutagenics, govt mandatory vazzes, bio-weapons- binary bio-weapons & who’s dying from what.
It should be shocking to everyone the amount of idiots lining up for begging “Experimental Vaccines” without even asking “what’s in these so called vaccines?”, is their any short or long term side effects like Death?”, ” and what about these muagenics so called vaccines causing permanent sterilisation?”.
Maybe you could check a few other news sources for something closer to the truth?
CDC’s latest numbers?
Mainstream Media Ignores US Death Rates For 2020 That Proves There Is NO PANDEMIC
3,556 views
Jan 3, 2021
Infowars Sunday Night Live
As Alex and the independent media attacked the medical community for these false death numbers, we see now that the number as finally tallied that death rates are basically the same year over year, yet the MSM won’t ever let you know about it.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff291820fe045288c6ae79a
In the US so far getting the vaccine is not manditory.
If these vaccines trouble you – do not get them.
I fully support your freedom to choose not to get them.
I would note that the AZ vaccine is a traditional vaccine – like the flu vaccine – as BTW are the 5 different vaccines from China which are being used in Brazil and India, and russia.
If you are concerned about the mRNA vaccines – get the AZ vaccine.
In the next few days the CDC’s latest numbers will be broken down better so everyone can see they were completely punked & the govt US burnt it’s business down for nothing while the WalMarts gained ground.
Bill Gates is even in an interview these first Vaz/Mutagenics are a test & seemed to be warning of that people like him & Fauci, others have been working on new ones.
Gates isn’t a doctor but he can buy all he needs. Dr Francis Boyle is a real doctor in this area, he & other major world labs can tell this is a spliced together, Illegal ” Gain of Function” weapon. A main thing about it is they see it has multiple receptors for later weapons to attack.
Anyway, this was to big of a topic for me at the time. I’m no experts, but there’s plenty of real news on this topics from experts if one checks outside the captured old media/big tech.
On banned.video Saturday Atty Robert Barnes & Jones address quite a bit about the on going move to attempt mandatory vaccines.
Anyone can still find it there.
“In the next few days the CDC’s latest numbers will be broken down better so everyone can see they were completely punked & the govt US burnt it’s business down for nothing while the WalMarts gained ground.”
Do not disagree with any of that. it appears the total mortatity for 2020 will only be a few thousand above 2019.
That means the actual deaths from Covid 19 – rather than dying people also having C19 is only going to be a few thousand – not 300K+
“Bill Gates is even in an interview these first Vaz/Mutagenics are a test & seemed to be warning of that people like him & Fauci, others have been working on new ones.”
All true – the mRNA vaccines are a big deal. There is good reason to beleive they are far safer than prior vaccines. And they can be developed in a matter of a few days. It is likely that but for C19 it would have taken half a decade or more to get approval for the first mRNA vaccine. Getting the first approval is a big deal. Should we need a new vaccine for the new variant of C19 or should an mRNA vaccine be developed for other viruses – like the common cold or the flu, development time could be a few days and approval time only a month to two NEXT TIME.
“Gates isn’t a doctor but he can buy all he needs. Dr Francis Boyle is a real doctor in this area, he & other major world labs can tell this is a spliced together, Illegal ” Gain of Function” weapon. A main thing about it is they see it has multiple receptors for later weapons to attack.”
There is no such thing as ‘illegal” in this context. the mRNA vaccine does NOT enter cell nucleus. It is much simpler in operation that traditional vaccines, and it is much safer. Absolutely some RNA is modified to use your cells to produce the C19 spike protein.
But all it does it produce that protein. And your body then develops antibodies to it. This is no different from traditional vaccines – except that it is simpler and safer. And faster to develop in a world where we can sequence RNA in a day.
“Anyway, this was to big of a topic for me at the time. I’m no experts, but there’s plenty of real news on this topics from experts if one checks outside the captured old media/big tech.”
Yes the operation of the mRNA vaccine is well documented if you wish to look into that.
It is a kind of “nano tech” – because ALL proteins are tiny machines.
“On banned.video Saturday Atty Robert Barnes & Jones address quite a bit about the on going move to attempt mandatory vaccines.”
And I will oppose manditory vaccines.
At the same time I will get whichever vaccine is available to me the moment it is available to me.
You are free to make your own choice. I will fight for your free choice – even if I beleive you are wrong.
John say,
For some reason a post of mine was flagged for moderation. I’ll try it in pieces to attempt to see the issue for the flag?
Oky1 says:
January 4, 2021 at 2:53 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Notice we are all being bombarded with so much important info beyond our regular business that there’s no way it seems to digest it all unless we figure out a method to crowd source the material. IE: I can’t get the broken down CDC 2020 death info just yet but I wasted about hours today looking for chart that I’ve seen & know it exits. It’s coming.
“There is no such thing as ‘illegal” in this context. the mRNA vaccine does NOT enter cell nucleus. It is much simpler in operation that traditional vaccines, and it is much safer. Absolutely some RNA is modified to use your cells to produce the C19 spike protein. ”
The link below is a short 11 min visualization of what is claimed happens inside a body when a mRNA is put into that body. The question is if this new tech is being purposely being discredited in this use by big pharma before maybe the positive side of mRNA has been shown to the public. For example part of my wife’s cancer treatment was a different type of gene theory. It’s worked so far… Knock on Wood. All many of us know is those bast*rds all first Lie to us up until the point we find out the truth & throw it back in their faces.
( Another issue to many of us, it seems like the ” Mark of the Beast”? )
https://banned.video/watch?id=5fee55015b1d5820e13859a3
2 of 2:
illegal, ” Gain of Function Research”, it’s all based off the Nuremberg code in US/International Law, “Law. AKA: People have the Right to use all force needed to defend themselves against unwilling ” illegal Human medical experimentation by anyone, govt., Bill Gates Foundation. etc….”
“They” are already doing it to Humans, so legally “they’ve” all ready crossed that line, illegally, it seems to many of us.
We will all see our things start unfolding in regards to their criminal behaviour & the public’s reaction to it.
Honestly OKy1 – I do not understand what you are ranting about.
You are free to take the vaccine – or not.
If you beleive it is some super secret bio weapon, do not take it.
I will, and mmaybe Bill Gates will take over my mind and track my movements.
I will be the victim of my own choice.
Or alternately you may be wrong and risking your life when I am safe.
One way or another it is darwin awards. the only question is which of is wins one.
OKY1
I honestly can not tell what you are arguing.
First – get vaccinated – don’t – your choice. One I will defend absolutely.
Next, nearly all vaccines essentially engineer the body to produce proteins that then cause the body to produce antibodies that will hopefully later attack the real disease. Proteins are machines. We did not know that two decades ago, we do now. They are actual mechanical machines that move in response to chemical changes. Our body is filled with proteins – nano bots. Every living thing is fully of these nano bot proteins. Our understanding of this is new. The fact is not.
mRNA vaccines are new. They are untested (mostly) on humans. Though we have lots of experince with them in other contexts.
There are excellent reasons to beleive they are safer than previous vaccines.
But the next really big deal is that we can create an mRNA vaccine in about 2 days from completing sequencing a virus.
It takes longer to produce it in quantity. But for Covid it is unlikely that an mRNA vaccine would ever be approved in less than 4 years.
But that is typical of FDA there is no penalty for letting large numbers of people die, there is a huge penalty for harming a very small number – even where tens of thousands are saved.
Regardless we now have several mRNA vaccines and barring a catastrophic failure, they will be commonplace int he future and they are a very big deal – because they can be developed rapidly and they are safer than other vaccines overall.
That is a very big deal for the future.
I would further note that these vaccines are just one more of the myriads of examples where the “evil free market capitalists” have saved our bacon in the past year.
Toilet paper – Oh My! we are going to run out!!!!! Yet everywhere in the country – shelves were emptied each day and refilled every night.
Hand Sanitizer – Oh My! we are going to run out!!!! and Evil Horders. Within a few weeks we were all drowning in hand sanitizer.
PPE – same thing. Today you can buy personallized masks. You can buy them by the gross. You can buy exotic masks. You can buy masks protesting wearing masks.
Ventalators – turned out we did not really need them – but if we had, they were coming by the truckload.
Drugs – within a short period of time a whole army of drugs that were approved for other purposes were found effective against C19.
Some became stupid political footballs. Regardless – there was purportedly no real treatment for virus’s before, now there is, in record time.
And Vaccines in record time.
And all of this brought to you by ….. Democrats ? No! Governors ? No!, Government ? No! Trump? Only in the sense that he grasped what would happen.
All of this and much more brought to you by free markets.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1
“Regardless we now have several mRNA vaccines and barring a catastrophic failure, they will be commonplace int he future and they are a very big deal – because they can be developed rapidly and they are safer than other vaccines overall.”
not proven safer. just allegedly safer. the long term tests you referred to never happened, did they
they got waivers all over the world, from long term trials. wake up, and lay off the hopium
feel free to get that vaccine and the booster and lmk how it works out.
y’all can play guinea pigs if you want to volunteer for it
for now I’ll let me immune system handle it without the nanomachine DNA modification injection thingee
saloth sar
The design and operation of mRNA vaccines is inherently safer.
Traditional vaccines are made from a weakened version of the actual virus.
The difference between an mRNA vaccine and a traditional vaccine is that the mRNA is engineer to produce PART of the virus, while a traditional vaccine produces a WHOLE virus.
All proteins are nano machines. Your entire body is made of nano-machines.
“I would further note that these vaccines are just one more of the myriads of examples where the “evil free market capitalists” have saved our bacon in the past year.”
Well said! Your entire comment was a breath of fresh air.
I beleive I said this. But it is incredibly disturbing that over the past year – those evil free market capitalists are almost solely responsible for every single bit of good that has been accomplished in dealing with Covid.
And yet the public discourse is entirely about government.
Trump failed of Cuomo succeeded – can anyone says that unironically ?
Our great debate has been about govenrment and public policy.
Absolutely Trump failed – by not doing pretty much the opposite of nearly everything experts pushed.
There is absolutely zero evidence that lockdowns accomplish anything but prolonging the agony.
The FACT predictable from the start is that govenrment could not make this better – but it could and did make it worse.
You wrote:
“First – get vaccinated – don’t – your choice. One I will defend absolutely.”
I agree that vaccinations should be voluntary, but those choosing not too are affecting others since they will hinder our efforts toward herd immunity and specifically endanger those who for whatever reason are not able to take it or are the children of ignorant parents. They deserve our scorn.
In WWII, citizens were asked to sacrifice and mostly did without the BS conspiracy theories so popular on both the right and the left.
During the Revolutionary War there was a smallpox outbreak and citizens were forced to quarantine in Boston and elsewhere, all enforced by George Washington.
Now we have snowflakes too delicate to expose their precious bodies to unnatural vaccines or those they think were developed by Satan’s spawn under the control of Chinese Communists/Corporate Masters/ Billionaires (pick one of your choice).
Do your M’fing part and get vaccinated. Your just not that important as an individual.
“but those choosing not too are affecting others since they will hinder our efforts toward herd immunity and specifically endanger those who for whatever reason are not able to take it or are the children of ignorant parents.”
Nope, you do not harm others by existing – vaccinated, unvaccinated, masked, unmasked.
You harm others by interacting with them AFTER you have become sick.
You do so whether you have Covid or the flu or just the cold.
That said – ultimately – it is YOUR body. I hear those who pro-choice say that all the time.
You are responsible for it – especially now that you have vaccination as an option.
“They deserve our scorn.” Scorn whoever you want. For good reasons or bad.
You have the right to scorn others. You have no right to use force against them.
“In WWII, citizens were asked to sacrifice and mostly did”
Your an expert on WWII ?
Regardless comparisons to war are highly suspect. War is one of few times that we allow government to broadly violate our rights for the common good – and that is why everyone with a cause wants to make their cause a “war” – the war on poverty., the war on drugs, the war on litter.
When you make comparisons to war you are ALWAYS seeking broad power to force everyone to do as you wish.
“During the Revolutionary War there was a smallpox outbreak and citizens were forced to quarantine in Boston and elsewhere, all enforced by George Washington.”
Nope – words matter – he precluded the citizens of Boston from comingling with troops, he also prohibited troops that had not already survived smallpox from going to boston. And finally he ordered the quarantine of sick troops.
I have not heard of anyone that does not support restrictions on those who actually have C19.
“Now we have snowflakes too delicate to expose their precious bodies to unnatural vaccines or those they think were developed by Satan’s spawn under the control of Chinese Communists/Corporate Masters/ Billionaires (pick one of your choice).”
How are they different from those who beleive that Trump colluded with Russia (or that Hillary did not).
“Do your M’fing part and get vaccinated.”
There is no “your part” – the only duty you owe to others is not actively harming them.
If you are sick – you must isolate – cold, flu, Covid.
“Your just not that important as an individual.”
The opposite – you are ONLY important as an individual.
It is specifically because people value their own lives that most are likely to vaccinate.
I have done many many things that have very weak actual science behind them – because I am old enough that the risk to me is higher than the flu. I am doing that for ME.
I got the MMR vaccine – because there is data that is probably 77% effective – why the H311 havent was pushed that to older people ?
It is a good idea anyway.
I am nearly OD’ing on Vitamine D and Zinc for similar reasons.
I do not wear a mask because I do not wish to give others a disease I do not have.
I wear a mask because I do not trust people like you – who have demonstrated no evidence that you are trustworthy.
Boyle is a lawyer, and a law professor, but yes an expert in biological weapons conventions
I think Boyle really called it early.
Let’s not forget the Nobel Prize winning virologist Jean Luc Montagnier says it was lab created too
I agree mandatory vaccinations are going to be expanded from the usual assortment of beneficial and well tested safe vaccines like tetanus or whatever, to these new untested ones like for the Sars cov 2 virus. or whatever it morphs into ere long
what we are seeing now, is a massive human vaccine trial staged all across the world. this is questionable ethically and legally. I am no anti vaxxer but it’s very troubling
Saloth Sar
http://freedomandprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Libertarian-Guide-600×600.jpg
Wouldn’t most of the people fluent in the language be elderly? If people spoke it within their family as young children, but then did not sufficiently pass it down to their kids for whatever reason, who were then not able to pass it down to grandkids, then it would be the elderly who are the fluent speakers anyway.
They might be – but do not presume that.
There are very odd generational trends in minorities.
Further why would the Sioux seek to use language rather than age if they were congruent ?
Isn;t respect for the elederly also a core american indian value ?
Unless the Language is taught then these story tellers are going to be speaking gibberish to the listeners just as if I were to listen to something in the Greek language.
Here in North Carolina we have seen lots of effort go into the preservation of Mountain country language, music, and art…..but with the advent of radio, television, and influx of outsiders….all of that is slowly going away in daily life.
Perhaps as important as knowing one’s cultural background can be…..at some point it will have to be preserved on media rather than in a few people.and assimilation overtakes the old ways.
It is sad to see that happen but then Life is an ever changing thing despite every effort to stop or slow that change..
Life is change.
We have “lost” myriads of cultures and languages over the past 150,000 years.
I have zero problems with groups trying to preserve their language and culture.
But it is not an obligation to the rest of us.
When Johnny Cash wanted to get a flu shot he had to ask: A girl named Sue.
The girl said: “I am a Sioux but my name is not Sue!”
NB, in preparation for the 2018-19 flu season, about 28 million doses of flu vaccine per month were administered. This is a two-dose vaccine, so we’d vaccinate at that pace 14 million people per month. If we set aside 10 million doses for the nursing home population and the hands-on medical sector workers, we should be able to vaccinate everyone over 60 by the middle of June. That should suffice to cut the death toll by > 85%. Of course, the useless CDC has to drag in the diversity discourse, and their frigging advisory committee (chaired by a pediatrician named Peter Szilagyi) made this diversicrat recommendation without a single dissent. Our professional class despises the rest of us.
Jon, point of order .. those language speakers are among the *oldest-oldest* members of the group. Period.
They think their culture was destroyed by acts such as the Trail of Tears. This is a “hill they are willing die on.” Bet the farm on that.
I would not presume to know any of the things that you claim to know with certainty.
The trail of tears happened between 1830 and 1850 – BEFORE the civil war.
That is 3+ generations ago.
I have no problems with letting the sioux sort out their own prioties – but I would not presume to know what groups within the sioux community are driving this – or what age they are.
I would note that is native speakers and those over 75 were congruent – there would be no debate at all.
Six generations ago. No clue why they would fancy their culture was ‘destroyed’ by it.
Besides, I think that was Cherokee rather than Sioux. Different people.
Cherokee and four other tribes.
But not Sioux, the people we were discussing.
However, thousands of black slaves owned by the Indians also made the trek.
AD4
We had enough doses to vaccinate 40M people in Dec. 20 with Pfiser, 20 with Moderna.
Currently January that is 40M every two weeks. It will be 60M a week by February. as the AZ and other vaccines become available and production scales.
How long did it take before everyone who wanted it had all the PPE they wanted ?
But it is the early vaccinations that are most important – the sooner we vaccinate the first 20M people that sooner the death tool drops.
Herd immunity is a diminishing returns curve – the first 20M with immunity reduce the spread far more than the laws 20M
We do not honestly have time to debate priorities. Every does available should be used – YESTERDAY if possible.
It is better to vaccinate 20M people under 40 than 2M people over 75.
Fast is what will have the most impact.
It will probably take 2 years to wipe C19 out. And it MIGHT take manditory vaccination to do so.
But it should not take a month to reduce the death rate 50% and it should not take 3 months to reduce it 95%.
Numbers are far more important than priorities.
This is more deadly than the flu.
For those who recover, it causes long-lasting side effects for some people, unlike the flu.
People over 60 and “hands-on medical sector workers” aren’t the only ones at high risk of contracting it and then developing significant health effects or death.
The government has already committed to buying several hundred million doses.
There is no reason not to ramp up vaccination compared to the flu, since this is more dangerous than the flu and it has the potential to continue evolving into more dangerous variants, like the one first discovered in the UK and already spreading in the US.
“This is more deadly than the flu.”
It is far more deadly than the flu for those over 75.
It is far far far less deadly than the flu for those under 50.
“For those who recover, it causes long-lasting side effects for some people, unlike the flu.”
Allegedly – though the symptoms are highly subjective. Regardless there is an effective treatment for what is called ‘long covid”
“People over 60 and “hands-on medical sector workers” aren’t the only ones at high risk of contracting it and then developing significant health effects or death.”
CDC data indicates that 94% of those who died with C19 were likely to die within 6 months and they died WITH C19 as opposed to FROM C19.
For the overwhelming majority of people who are not already near death C19 is LESS dangerous than the flu.
This is actually self evident from C19’s very high transmission rate. It kills people faster – because it spreads faster.
Not because it is much deadlier.
“The government has already committed to buying several hundred million doses.”
Correct
“There is no reason not to ramp up vaccination compared to the flu, since this is more dangerous than the flu”
It is because it is likely more dangerous that we should ramp up faster.
“and it has the potential to continue evolving into more dangerous variants”
This is true of every virus, and especially true of RNA viruses – The FLU mutates constantly at a faster rate than C19.
That is a part of why we get a flu season every year. Immunity to the flu is actually long lasting. But each variant circumvents immunity.
This does not so far appear to be true of c19.
“like the one first discovered in the UK and already spreading in the US.”
It is spreading rapidly accross the world – it is already In Japan which has some of the most effective barriers.
This is a reason to get the vaccine out as fast as possible. Not a reason to delay.
I would further note that the mRNA vaccines were developed 2 days after the virus was sequenced. All the remaining time was to assure that an entirely new form of vaccine was safe and to assure that it was effective and to figure out how to mass produce it.
It is likely that a new vaccine for a C19 variant that circumvented the existing vaccine might take less than 1month to get into mass production – assuming that CDC and FDA could approve it fast enough.
Flu vaccines are typically approved quickly – because the technology is well established.
Novel vaccines – truly new ones take much longer – the last novel vaccine took 4 years to develop.
mRNA vaccines are no longer novel.
One of the side effects of C19 is we may now have a new vaccine technology that can be developed safely and rapidly.
It is entirely possible that we are now on the cusp of wiping out not just C19 but many viruses that plague us.
I would note this Might not be a good thing.
The overwhelming majority of Covid deaths were in people who were dying.
They are going to die anyway. But instead of dying from C19 they may die of cancer or something more painful.
A very large portion of all deaths from diseases are of people who are near death.