2020 Presidential Election Discussion Thread

[JustRandy]

42 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

This has to be the most head-up-your-butt statement I've ever heard. "If you ain't doin nuttin, why aint you lettin the cops in yo house?" Because it's not legal, it's not their business, and it's persecution. We don't do that in this country. Maybe you're from somewhere else though.

Me being safe in my house is entirely different from me seeking public office.  You don't see that?

No one is forcing anyone to run for public office therefore no one is forcing anyone to submit tax returns.  However if you want to run for public office then I think the public has the right to determine whether you're financially responsible so you should be compelled to give up your returns.

Furthermore no real harm can come of it because every president before Trump has released their returns and nothing happened to them as a result.

So the only concern here is that the truth about Trump may come to light.  Unless you see some harm that I haven't thought of.  I'm definitely open to new ideas.

Plenty of people hate Biden yet he released his returns and seemingly suffered no harm because of it.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/15/biden-tax-return-00025643

Again, if you don't want to release your returns then don't run for public office.  If you don't want to give your returns to a bank then don't ask for a loan.  No one is forcing you to take a loan or run for office, so the analogy of being safe in your house doesn't apply.

[Wrapitall]

8 minutes ago, JustRandy said:

Me being safe in my house is entirely different from me seeking public office.  You don't see that?

 

So the laws are the same, but you think they should be different for TRUMP? Biden voluntarily released his returns. He's not currently in business with anyone but the Chinese and Ukranians, which of course isn't on his returns. Trump declined to release his. That's his right. Are you saying rights aren't universal?

[Ajmboy]

With election day for mid-terms a week away, interesting to see this topic come alive. I appreciate the overall civility and points of view. 👍

[JustRandy]

1 hour ago, Wrapitall said:

So the laws are the same, but you think they should be different for TRUMP?

No I'm saying as a matter of ethics that all politicians should be compelled to release returns, which is probably why all of them instinctively do, except Trump.  I'm not saying there is a law enforcing that ethos, but there should be.

I also wouldn't see that compulsion as an infringement on rights because no one is forced to run for office.  The choice of running for office comes with obligations.  For instance I don't run for office because I don't want my life to be public.  I don't have the right to run for office while also remaining private because the public has a right to know who I am if I'm going to represent them.

1 hour ago, Wrapitall said:

Biden voluntarily released his returns. He's not currently in business with anyone but the Chinese and Ukranians, which of course isn't on his returns. Trump declined to release his. That's his right. Are you saying rights aren't universal?

The public's right to know their representative supersedes the representative's right to evade being known.

Trump doesn't have the right to privacy while also being a public representative.  So it's not his right to choose not to release his returns.

Voters have the right to know how much debt he has and to what degree he is beholden to bankers.  He doesn't have the right to conceal to what degree bankers could influence him because of the debt he's carrying nor the fact that he's irresponsible with money.

[JustRandy]

10 hours ago, Ajmboy said:

With election day for mid-terms a week away, interesting to see this topic come alive. I appreciate the overall civility and points of view. 👍

I placed a bet on predictit over a year ago that republicans would take both houses of congress and I'm even more sure now than then.  They should also pick up some governor spots.  Should be the biggest red wave since Reagan.

You should make a regular account and participate if you want to get people talking.  Lay down the badge so people think you're a regular member.  That way you could opine without revealing who you are and that you represent the site.

It's a shame the site is so inactive because I do love the software.

[Wrapitall]

10 hours ago, JustRandy said:

No I'm saying as a matter of ethics that all politicians should be compelled to release returns, which is probably why all of them instinctively do, except Trump.  I'm not saying there is a law enforcing that ethos, but there should be.

 

Ethics don't mean you get to see what a person made or does before he enters public office. You have a right to know if he's taking bribes or doing underhanded dealings, but those wouldn't appear on a tax return (Biden) anyway, so you're just on a witch hunt when you beg for tax returns.

No, you have laws that apply to all or they apply to none. Period. That's how America works.

[JustRandy]

52 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

Ethics don't mean you get to see what a person made or does before he enters public office. You have a right to know if he's taking bribes or doing underhanded dealings, but those wouldn't appear on a tax return (Biden) anyway,

The public has the right to know whether their prospective representative is: 1) Responsible with money. 2) In debt so much that they are controlled by bankers.  3) Whether they make charitable contributions.  4) Whether they actually pay any tax or because they're so deep in debt that they haven't paid tax in decades while still living a lavish lifestyle.  5) Whether they are actually as rich as they claim in order to determine if they are a liar.

Public representatives have no right to conceal those things from the public.

Also, no harm can come from releasing the returns, so it's not even a sacrifice. 

Also, if a billionaire is really a billionaire, he would be proud to show off his return.

The truth is he is billions in the hole and neither he nor you want that fact to be know for certain.  Trump would probably hang himself if his returns became public because exposing the con would mean his life is over.  That's why he's begging SCOTUS for help.

52 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

so you're just on a witch hunt when you beg for tax returns.

No it's not a witch hunt because I said ALL POLITICIANS should surrender returns.  You seem determined not to get that.

52 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

No, you have laws that apply to all or they apply to none. Period. That's how America works.

Read please:

11 hours ago, JustRandy said:

No I'm saying as a matter of ethics that all politicians should be compelled to release returns

Refusing to read indicates you unconditionally support Trump regardless if he's a broke liar with no business sense whatsoever.  The truth doesn't matter to you.  That was Dave's point.

This isn't about Trump v Biden.

This is about Trump v DeSantis.

DeSantis is by far the better candidate, but Trumpers are so in love with the conman that they risk handing Biden a second term.

Trump is the only one who can get Biden reelected.  Maybe that's why dems are acting the way they are.  Dems want Trump to be the opposition because he's likely to lose.

[Wrapitall]

1 minute ago, JustRandy said:

The public has the right to know whether their prospective representative is: 1) Responsible with money. 2) In debt so much that they are controlled by bankers.  3) Whether they make charitable contributions.  4) Whether they actually pay any tax or because they're so deep in debt that they haven't paid tax in decades while still living a lavish lifestyle.  5) Whether they are actually as rich as they claim in order to determine if they are a liar.

The public has the *RIGHT* to know exactly what the politician offers. No more, no less. The *PRESS* is the one that digs up dirt or whatever on politicians, and they've been woefully absent on Biden, however Trump has become the most investigated president in all of United States History with zero results.

[JustRandy]

5 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

The public has the *RIGHT* to know exactly what the politician offers. No more, no less.

No, the public has the right to know who their representative is.  The representative has no right to conceal who they are.

5 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

The *PRESS* is the one that digs up dirt or whatever on politicians, and they've been woefully absent on Biden,

Then you just admitted the press isn't sufficient.  Your statement refutes itself.

5 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

however Trump has become the most investigated president in all of United States History with zero results.

There are plenty of results.  You just refuse to see them.  That's Dave's point.

[Wrapitall]

16 minutes ago, JustRandy said:

No, the public has the right to know who their representative is.  The representative has no right to conceal who they are.

 

You keep using that word, "right", yet you seem to have no concept of what it means. It kind of feels like I'm talking to an imbecile at this point. I'll try one more time:

Any candidate, including Biden, Pelosi, or Trump, has a RIGHT to give as much or as little information to the public as they wish. The press usually gets leaks to fill in any blanks, as evidenced in the leak of one of Trump's old tax returns. If they don't pursue the story, that' that. End of story. THE PUBLIC then decides if they're happy with the information given and votes accordingly.

You have no right to anyone's personal information anymore than they have a right to yours. You can NOT have different rights for different people. And that's the last I'll say on the subject with you. Again, I feel you're either trolling (500 posts and a good portion are arguing with people in this thread...) or not mentally equipped to handle the concept of rights vs. privileges. You may be a fine person and operate well in a civilized society, but there seems to be a few fries missing from your happy meal. Best of luck. I'm putting you on "ignore" now.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Wrapitall

[JustRandy]

8 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

Any candidate, including Biden, Pelosi, or Trump, has a RIGHT to give as much or as little information to the public as they wish.

Sure,  if they don't intend to run for office.  But if they intend to run for office then they no longer have that right.  Their rights are superseded by the public's right to know who they are.

9 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

The press usually gets leaks to fill in any blanks

You don't trust the press, yet you think the press should be the arbiter of truth.  That's cognitive dissonance.

10 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

You have no right to anyone's personal information anymore than they have a right to yours.

If they intend to represent me then I have the right to information about them.  It's their choice to run for office.  I am not forcing them.

11 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

there seems to be a few fries missing from your happy meal.

When you're out of ammo, throw mud.

12 minutes ago, Wrapitall said:

I'm putting you on "ignore" now.

Plucking your eyes out accomplishes nothing but to reaffirm what I said earlier that you have no interest in the truth.

[JustRandy]

There should have been a red wave in light of inflation and the unpopularity of dementia Joe.  The conclusion is inescapable that Trump pulled the plug on any red wave and once again handed power to the dems.  I totally underestimated just how much people don't like Trump.

Here we see Georgia actually became more republican in the last 4 years:

It's no secret that Kemp and Trump don't like each other.  Kemp increased his votes while Abrams lost votes.

What I couldn't understand is how Kemp could decidedly win but Walker lost on the same ballot.  Who is voting for Kemp, but not Walker?  We saw that trend playout across the country: republicans who distanced themselves from Trump did better than the MAGA candidates.  DeSantis did exceptionally well!

So it's now completely obvious that the senate loss in 2020 was due to Trump.  Perdue and Loeffler campaigned with Trump but ultimately lost the senate to Ossoff and Warnock.

Now we go to runoff again and I'm afraid the same will happen.

Even McEnany is telling Trump to stay away.

 

So yeah, when I said Trump is Biden's only hope for reelection, I was spot on.  The dems know it:

Liberal fundraisers actually put money behind Trump-endorsed candidates in GOP primaries all over the place to help them prevail so that Democrats could face them in the general election.  https://nypost.com/2022/11/09/heres-how-donald-trump-sabotaged-the-republican-midterms/

Anyone still supporting Trump is actually supporting the democrats.  We will probably lose the senate once again because of Trump.

A prediction I made several years ago was that one day those who supported Trump would never admit it.  That day is quickly coming.

Who cares about his tax returns now?  Trump is done.  Nothing but a stain in history.

[davefrombc]

Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz didn't need tRump  to  help them deserve to  lose. Oz is an as* to  put it politely,  Walker is despicable on several counts..

How can  any intelligent person   vote for Lauren  Boebert or Marjorie Taylor  Greene  is also beyond me. I would like to think the only ones that would are die hard GOP  that wouldn't vote for anyone except the GOP candidate , no matter how unfit they are for the job,  and  the far too many that don't follow the issues  but have the "right"  letters after their name on the ballot.

The GOP  needs to get rid of the  extreme right nut cases and return  a lot  closer to the center right .  The GOP of today  is  a very far cry from the "Party of Lincoln"

[JustRandy]

1 hour ago, davefrombc said:

Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz didn't need tRump  to  help them deserve to  lose. Oz is an as* to  put it politely,  Walker is despicable on several counts..

I can see that.  Why do you think they were picked?  Because of Trump's endorsement, right?

I didn't think Perdue and Loeffler were very good picks either.  Kemp Picked Loeffler to fill a vacated seat, but then she turned from a Kemp pick to a Trump sycophant.

1 hour ago, davefrombc said:

How can  any intelligent person   vote for Lauren  Boebert or Marjorie Taylor  Greene  is also beyond me

Greene represents the 2nd most conservative district in the state and one of the most in the country.  Here's a map of PVI (partisan voting index) https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0qCy3/2/  She represents the district in the upper left of GA.  There was never any chance she was going to lose.

I often ask myself why such smart people do such dumb things.  A guy I listen to on the radio was Mensa and worked for NASA who just can't get it through his head that Trump isn't our savior.

1 hour ago, davefrombc said:

The GOP  needs to get rid of the  extreme right nut cases and return  a lot  closer to the center right .

I'd say DeSantis is farther right than any of them, yet he did the best.  So moving to the center wouldn't seem to be the best strategy.

DeSantis is Trump with a brain.  Harvard, Yale, Navy Seal Advisor, Lawyer.  Graduated magna cum laude. 

Trump is just a moron who paid for his grades with daddy's money and doesn't really stand for anything except himself.  You were right about him 6 years ago.

[davefrombc]

1 hour ago, JustRandy said:

 

 

 

I often ask myself why such smart people do such dumb things.  A guy I listen to on the radio was Mensa and worked for NASA who just can't get it through his head that Trump isn't our savior.

I'd say DeSantis is farther right than any of them, yet he did the best.  So moving to the center wouldn't seem to be the best strategy.

DeSantis is Trump with a brain.  Harvard, Yale, Navy Seal Advisor, Lawyer.  Graduated magna cum laude. 

Trump is just a moron who paid for his grades with daddy's money and doesn't really stand for anything except himself.  You were right about him 6 years ago.

I am definitely not a DeSantis fan and I agree with your assessment of him.  As you said, someone can be a member of Mensa and still be a fool.

I said the GOP  needs to  move towards the center right.  I know it would hurt them  some , but really , how much?.  The extreme right and GOP only voters would still  vote for them.  They might even  get some of their old centrist base back that either didn't vote or  voted for a Dem because they  can see how damaging to the country the extremists and some of their nut case attitudes  can be. 

Unfortunately  I see right extremism rising everywhere, not  just in the US.  We have more than  our share here  and in Europe too.  It does not lead down a very good path  as the 20th century showed all too  horribly well.

[JustRandy]

25 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

As you said, someone can be a member of Mensa and still be a fool.

I think people get emotionally involved and don't want to be wrong.  Instead of thinking with their head they think with their emotions.  I like listening to the radio guy but I hate hearing constantly that dems are scared of Trump while in fact dems are donating to Trump-endorsed candidates.

27 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

I said the GOP  needs to  move towards the center right.  I know it would hurt them  some , but really , how much?

You're asking the wrong person because I'm still trying to figure out how any republican would vote for Kemp and not vote for Walker.  I mean, who cares what anyone thinks of Walker as a person if he will vote like all other republicans about abortion, guns, and other rightwing issues.  Why would any republican just let the democrat win because they don't like Walker?  It doesn't make sense.

And honestly, Kemp is not that great.  He's hillbilly bumpkin with little education who just happened to have an influential father.  The only notable things he did was not shut the state down for covid and keep his mouth shut about election fraud (probably because his daughter's boyfriend died in a car explosion the day after he said he might call a special session to investigate election fraud and from then on he didn't say a word).

36 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

Unfortunately  I see right extremism rising everywhere, not  just in the US.  We have more than  our share here  and in Europe too.  It does not lead down a very good path  as the 20th century showed all too  horribly well.

Studies show conservatism increases with: government corruption, deterioration of public services, disparity and economic hardship, etc.  In other words, if you want more conservatives then make things harder on people.

If we just look at whites, then liberals are the well-to-do ones while conservatives are the poor ones.

51 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

center

The problem with fake liberals and centrists is they don't do anything for the people which leads to increasing conservatives.  For instance Biden said he'd pardon those convicted for marijuana, but in reality no one qualifies.

Centrism is the worst.  That's why I said it would have been better to let Trump win in 2020 than have Biden because a worse Trump would come along and now that day is here with DeSantis.  I told ya so.

Trump was just a bubbling fool but DeSantis will actually get things done.

If Trump had won 2020 then he wouldn't be able to run again, so we'd have a shot at a decent progressive in 2024.  But since Trump lost now DeSantis will likely reign for 8 years because dems have nobody with any name recognition who isn't over 80.  The only one who could beat DeSantis is Obama and he can't run.

1 hour ago, davefrombc said:

extremism

What people see as extreme is the LGBT stuff which are an extreme minority of the population.  People are tired of movies and TV being woke political statements and the war on masculinity.  People don't want the government locking them down for their own protection.  People don't want their kids indoctrinated with what they see as extreme views.  Most republicans would see DeSantis as a normal guy and it's the democrats that are extreme.

[davefrombc]

DeSantis may get things done if he gets the presidency and a majority in the Houses, but you won't like what he gets done.

I don't see extremism in wanting to see people able to love who they want to or what sex they identify with. None of  their personal  choices or orientation affects me ,nor should it  anyone else.   I don't see extremism  in saying everyone should have the same rights and respect, no  matter what race, colour they  are, or what religion they follow.  Again  none of that affects me.  What does affect me is how others treat me, and my opinion of them  depends on that and how they treat others.

There are many things we disagree on.  I  know  the vaccines and measures taken to try to  protect  people and limit the spread as much as possible.   We can disagree and still be friends with others , and that's how it should be .

 

[JustRandy]

Why won't I like what DeSantis does?  What do you think he will do?

People can love who they want, but they don't have to put it on tv.  Most people are not that way so there is no sense in flaunting what most people do not like.  That is the definition of extreme.  People who are 2% of society should have 2% of tv channels, not 100%.

It isn't about rights.  Everyone already has equal rights to do whatever or love whoever without it being flaunted.  The flaunting and grooming the kids is the issue.  Why don't we have straight pride parades?  Why don't we have a month devoted to white people?  Why is it only minorities?  If we had a parade for the majority, it would be called extreme, which is the exact opposite of extreme.

Continuing to push what most people don't like will only result in backlash.  The same sort of thing happened in Weimar in the 1930s and no one liked the result.  History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

The vaccines didn't protect anyone nor limit the spread.  It only increased heart disease and cancer.  My uncle just died of cancer last week.  He was free of cancer for 8 yrs until he took the vaccine.  There was nothing wrong with him and everyone thought he'd live to 100.  Many I know who took the vaccine has either died or has something wrong with them.  Meanwhile those who refused are healthier than ever.

All that mask and vaccine stuff is the reason I'm 100% in the GOP camp.  Before that I was a Bernie donor.  It really opened my eyes how authoritarian the liberals are.  Ironic that liberal means liberty. 

I don't care about medicare for all anymore.  I just want the gov to leave me alone.  That's why otherwise intelligent people vote for Greene.

2 years out from the lockdowns and I still can't find dog and cat food.  Shelves are empty like Venezuela.  They killed all the chickens over bird flu and now there is no more grain-free petfood.  Purina simply quit making it.  Pets are being surrendered to shelters or worse.  I hate to think about all the animals suffering because of the tyrannical do-gooders meddling in everyone business under the guise of protecting people who ended up dying anyway.

That's why Confucius said the do-gooders are the thieves of virtue.  And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  People trying to protect me is the scariest thing I can imagine.  I want the gov to protect my rights, not protect me.  And that's what Kemp and DeSantis represent.

We both agree that Bernie's ideas are best, but I just can't risk putting a do-gooder in power after having lived through covid.  Maybe that gives you an understanding how the other side thinks.

[davefrombc]

As I said , we can disagree on many things.  The protests , , parades, months devoted minorities are all direct result of the discrimination and worse for far too long by the minorities.   Whites don't have to  have any of them for the simple reason they've always had the luxury of   lack of colour discrimination all  along.  You only  perceive tv and movies are heavy on gay  and  minority issues and "grooming of kids"  because you're looking for it  and take many things that normally would not  have raised an eyebrow as somehow an attack  on your values.

The vaccines work, despite your prejudices against them. That is established fact whether the right wing ant-vqxxers  and conspiracy theorists want to  admit it or not .The misinformation and outright lies  by so  many  have made the measures to  reduce the spread of COVID  far less  effective than they could have been.. The vaccines did NOT give anyone cancer or cause it to reoccur  if he had it before and was cancer free for 8 years.. I,  unfortunately have had too many friends and family fall to  cancers,   my mother included,  that they had been treated for and  had in remission for several years.  When  it flared again , there was no stopping it ..  A friends wife was thought to be in  perfect  health. Felt ill and went to the doctor. Diagnosed with cancer and dead a month later.. It was that fast ,from nothing wrong to  dead in a month. The electrical  foreman  in the mill I worked in had a complete physical for his company insurance and  was assessed as perfectly healthy.   A week later  sitting at coffee with  other staff, he suddenly looked very surprised and collapsed on the table without uttering a sound .. He was in his mid 50's. The doctor said he  was likely dead from a massive heart attack before  his head hit the table.

All these deaths occurred a long time before COVID  appeared; but if they happened now after someone had been  vaccinated the vaccine would have been  blamed  by those that know no better.  Everyone I  know  and associate with have never had any adverse reaction to the shot; and those that refused it have been fortunate enough  to remain healthy.  I  have  had the full lot of vaccine and boosters, including one booster where the nurse accidentally gave me a double dose.  My reaction to the entire series of shots?. Nothing more than  a slightly sore shoulder the next day.  That's it. My family and friends had no more than a couple of them feeling  "a little off"  for a couple of days .. My son-in-law is a fully vaxxed paramedic.  He caught a breakthrough case of COVID.  He was very sick , but didn't need hospitalization. He said he knows full well had he not have been vaccinated it would have killed him.  An Asian friend caught a case of it  long after he had been vaccinated. He ended up  with no  more than the sniffles  and a bit of fever.

Yes Randy , believe the deniers or the facts , but the fact is the vaccines work  and I  have seen  some of the results in friends and medical reports.

[JustRandy]

38 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

Whites don't have to  have any of them for the simple reason they've always had the luxury of   lack of colour discrimination

I guess that's true but the word slave comes from Slav who were white people, presumably with darker eyes and skin enslaved by the red and blonde Germanic and Norse who were considered prized slaves for the Romans.  Whites discriminated and enslaved each other throughout history.

I'd prefer nobody gets a medal nor parade because as long as one color is celebrated we're still observing color, which is supposed to be irrelevant.  It's hypocrisy and more do-gooder-ness that just results in more suffering than if nothing at all were done.

38 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

You only  perceive tv and movies are heavy on gay  and  minority issues and "grooming of kids"  because you're looking for it 

I'm not looking for it.  I'm looking for something without it.

Terminator is supposed to be a big masculine guy.  Instead the last couple Terminator movies they were women, and the last one I couldn't tell for sure what sex it was, and the only reason a big white guy was in the movie at all is because that's how the series started in the 80s.  It's stupid and transparently political.  And the new Matrix was some purple-haired misfit, once again transparently political to shape society rather than entertain or make money.

38 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

The vaccines work, despite your prejudices against them.

There is no proof they worked.  Covid cases exploded after the vaccine.   Pfizer even admitted the vaccine wasn't tested for nor intended to reduce transmission.  The only intention was to reduce severity.  But the death rate declined because the virus was milder as time went on and doctors had learned what worked and what didn't, which had nothing to do with the vaccine.

And did the vaccine protected against traffic accidents and falls down stairs?  No, it was simply that healthy people were getting the vaccine while unhealthy people were not.

The vaccine didn't do anything at all, except give side effects.

You can keep your head in the ground if you want to, but reality is still happening.  The miserable failure of the vaccines has caused participation in other vaccines to plummet.  We're set for a record flu season because few are taking any vaccines anymore.

Another example of do-gooders causing more harm.

38 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

The vaccines did NOT give anyone cancer or cause it to reoccur

Saw this on google news.  The truth is coming out.

 

Cancer and vaccines have a long storied history together.  By law they give rabies vaccines in a limb that can be cut off if cancer develops.

mrna vaccines in particular raise risk of cancer in those who are predisposed to it.  I could post studies but I think you'd ignore them.

52 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

When  it flared again , there was no stopping it

Grandpa had several recurrences from 84 to 92, but died cancer-free of something else entirely at 96.  My uncle was cured 8 years, which is remarkable considering they both had the same cancer.  Then he got the vaccine and a few months later the cancer returned.  Heck of a coincidence.

1 hour ago, davefrombc said:

Everyone I  know  and associate with have never had any adverse reaction to the shot

People smoke for decades and do not get cancer.  Does that mean smoking is not carcinogenic?

People use glyphosate for years and don't get cancer.  Does that mean glyphosate is not carcinogenic?

People get sunburns all the time, but does that mean UV radiation is not carcinogenic?

Just because you and people you know did not get cancer does not mean the vaccine is not a carcinogen.  It only means you were lucky.

[davefrombc]

I am not going to argue over vaccines. It's no use when you are so  convinced they are useless and can find those on the far right holding medical degrees arguing against them.  I'll go  by my own experience  than the 90% plus of the medical profession and researchers that say they do.

As I said before , the internet and its free access for the conspiracy theorists has proved as detrimental as it has proved useful for the  spread of information. It's too  bad so  many  refuse to  believe the facts over the disinformation/ misinformation out there.

Yes, a lot of us were lucky.  I smoked heavily for years before I quit shortly before I had quad bypasses. Both of the parents of one of my chums  weren't.  They both died of smoking related cancers , and one of my school chums died of lung cancer at 26,, before the links between lung cancers and heart disease were well establish over the disinformation and denials of the tobacco industry at the time. I took a lot of years before the togacco industry were forced to  admit the links smoking had to lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema. 

Despite  knowing the links between smoking  and cancer I smoked. It was an easy habit that was hard to break; and despite being smoke free for over 20  years, I know damn well if I was ever stupid enough to  take the first one again , I'd be right back on therm.

[JustRandy]

If you don't want to argue about vaccines then why did you bring it up knowing that we disagree?

I am convinced because I've read published research describing exactly how the vaccines cause cancer.  I've seen the explosion of cancer cases coincident with the vaccines.  I've noted that vaccinations and cancer often go hand in hand given that it's required to vaccinate pets in a limb that can be cut off after cancer develops.  And I've seen with my own eyes people getting cancer right after getting the vaccine.

I'd have to be crazy to dismiss all that evidence.

Have your son read this paper and tell you what it says  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

It is peer reviewed and published.  Maybe with his medical training he is equipped to understand it.

I bet if he reads it he will never take another vaccine in his life, especially given the history of cancer in your family.

Just because you take a vaccine and survive does not mean the vaccine is safe.  It only means you were lucky.

Just because you smoked and survived does not mean smoking is safe.  It only means you were lucky.

It took a lot of years for the tobacco industry to admit tobacco is dangerous and it will take a lot of years before the medical industry admits vaccines are dangerous.

Let's drop this tropic until your son reads that paper.

Now tell me why you're scared of DeSantis.  What do you think he will do that I won't like?  I'm genuinely interested to know.  I'm sure there is a lot I can learn from you.

[davefrombc]

As with any anti-viral or any other  medication, there will always be some with adverse reactions. Any of those results listed could occur in some individuals. What really matters is the frequency of them. For any one of them the rate is so  low  as to be insignificant compared to the benefits of the vaccine.  Here is an article with the numbers per million of those that have had adverse effects. Note that the adverse reactions rate doesn't mention the rates of mild  and severe  reactions , but the total rates. Those suffering more than  mild reactions requiring interventions would be far smaller.

https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS/VACCINE-EFFECTS/xegvbglkrpq/

[JustRandy]

You are still arguing how safe smoking is because most people who smoke don't suffer any adverse effects.  Most people who go out in sunlight do not get skin cancer.  Most people who use herbicides do not get cancer.

Yet tobacco, sunlight, and herbicides are still mutagenic.  (That's why I only use herbicides that are not mutagenic, such as the bromine based.)  Roundup works by essentially giving the plant cancer.  It's mutagenic by design.

The mrna vaccines are mutagenic as well.

1 hour ago, davefrombc said:

What really matters is the frequency of them.

The vast majority of adverse vaccine reactions are not reported. 

And who would associate a cancer diagnosis months or years after a vaccine?

My uncle got cancer a few months after a covid vaccine, but no one reported it to VAERS.

In spite of that under-reporting, cancer associated with covid vaccines are still twice all other vaccines in 31 years!

 

15.2 VAERS Signal for Cancer

Cancer is a disease generally understood to take months or, more commonly, years to progress from an initial malignant transformation in a cell to development of a clinically recognized condition. Since VAERS reports of adverse events are happening primarily within the first month or even the first few days after vaccination [209], it seems likely that the acceleration of cancer progression following vaccines would be a difficult signal to recognize. Furthermore, most people do not expect cancer to be an adverse event that could be caused by a vaccine. However, as we have outlined in our paper, if the mRNA vaccinations are leading to widespread dysregulation of oncogene controls, cell cycle regulation, and apoptosis, then VAERS reports should reflect an increase in reports of cancer, relative to the other vaccines.

 

This is in fact what VAERS reports reflect, and dramatically so. Table 1 illustrates events involving the most common cancers reported to VAERS in the US, cancers either newly identified or stable disease newly progressing. It compares reports related to COVID-19 vaccination to reports related to all other vaccinations over the 31-year history of VAERS information collection. 

 

Notably, there were three times as many reports of breast cancer following a COVID-19 vaccine, and more than six times the number of reports of B-cell lymphoma. All but one of the cases of follicular lymphoma were associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Pancreatic carcinoma was more than three times as high.

 

This cannot be explained by reference to a disproportionately large number of people receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year compared to all other vaccinations. The total number of people receiving a non-COVID-19 vaccination is unknown, but over the 31 years history of reports VAERS contains it is unquestionably many orders of magnitude larger than the number receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year. Overall, in the above table, twice as many cancer reports to VAERS are related to a COVID-19 vaccination compared to those related to all other vaccines. That, in our opinion, constitutes a signal in urgent need of investigation.  

 

https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

[davefrombc]

I'll let you go on with your denial and searches to  justify it, and I'll continue to follow the advice of my doctor and the medical profession.

[JustRandy]

25 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

I'll let you go on with your denial and searches to  justify it, and I'll continue to follow the advice of my doctor and the medical profession.

Don't forget to have your son read this peer reviewed published research https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

[davefrombc]

My son-in-law would read that with the same comprehension I have .. I'll let you try to  figure out how well we understand it.

[JustRandy]

35 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

My son-in-law would read that with the same comprehension I have .. I'll let you try to  figure out how well we understand it.

I've read it at least 50 times in the last year.  It's WAY over my head but I can understand the gist of it.

Here are some snips showing how the vaccine predisposes one to cancer:

IRF9 is most directly involved in anti-viral as well as anti-tumor immunity and genetic regulation (Alsamman and El-Masry, 2018; Huang et al., 2019; Zitvogel et al., 2015).

Central to both antiviral and anticancer immunity, IFN-α is produced by macrophages and lymphocytes when either is challenged with viral or bacterial infection or encounters tumor cells (De Andrea et al., 2002).

Impaired type I IFN signaling is linked to many disease risks, most notably cancer, as type I IFN signaling suppresses proliferation of both viruses and cancer cells by arresting the cell cycle, in part through upregulation of p53, a tumor suppressor gene, and various cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (Musella et al., 2017; Matsuoka et al., 1998).

IFN-α also induces major histocompatibility (MHC) class 1 antigen presentation by tumor cells, causing them to be more readily recognized by the cancer surveillance system (Heise et al., 2016; Sundstedt et al., 2008). The range of anticancer effects initiated by IFN-α expression is astounding and occurs through both direct and indirect mechanisms.

IRF9 has been suggested to be the primary member of the IRF family of proteins responsible for activation of the IFN-α antiproliferative effects, and that appears to be through its binding to the tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor 1 and 2 (TRAIL-R1/2) (Tsuno et al., 2009).

Once TRAIL is bound by IRF9, it is then able to act as a ligand for Death Receptor 4 (DR4) or DR5, initiating a cascade of events involving production of caspase 8 and caspase 3, and ultimately triggering apoptosis (Sayers, 2011). Dysregulation of this pathway, through suppression of either IFN-α or IRF9 and the resulting failure to bind TRAIL-R, has been associated with several hematologic malignancies (Testa, 2010) and has been shown to increase the metastatic potential in animal models of melanoma, colorectal cancer, and lymphoma (Finnberg and El-Deiry, 2008).

IFN-α both initiates and orchestrates a wide range of cancer suppressing roles. Dunn et al. (2005) showed that IFN-α plays an active role in cancer immunoediting, its locus of action being hematopoietic cells that are “programmed” via IFN-α binding for tumor surveillance. It is via the exceedingly complex interactions between type I IFNs and IRF7 and IRF9 in particular that a great deal of antiproliferative effects are carried out. This is evidenced by the large number of studies showing increased tumor growth and/or metastases associated with a wide number of cancer types.

 

Since these vaccines are specifically designed to induce high and ongoing production of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins, the implications are ominous. As described above, inhibition of IRF9 will suppress TRAIL and all its regulatory and downstream apoptosis-inducing effects. IRF9 suppression via exosomal microRNA should also be expected to impair the cancer-protective effects of BRCA2 gene activity, which depends on that molecule for its activity as described above. BRCA2-associated cancers include breast, fallopian tube, and ovarian cancer for women, prostate and breast cancer for men, acute myeloid leukaemia in children, and others (National Cancer Institute, 2021).

Vaccination has also been demonstrated to suppress both IRF7 and STAT2 (Liu et al., 2021). This can be expected to interfere with the cancer-protective effects of BRCA1 as described above. Cancers associated with impaired BRCA1 activity include breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer in women; prostate and breast cancer in men; and a modest increase in pancreatic cancer for both men and women (Cancer risk and BRCA1 gene, 2021).

[davefrombc]

Do a lot more searching  and reading Randy , and you might begin to  learn risk/ benefit ratios and why the vaccines  were approved . You might also  begin to realize just how tiny any of the noted risks are, and how great the benefits are for all  among the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated.

  You might also  search on "long COVID" and how it has affected some that showed even very minor symptoms at the time of infection.

[JustRandy]

I can't tell any difference between you and the Trumpers.

You're in a cult Dave. 

You refuse to read anything that may challenge Dear Leader. 

You only believe government propaganda.