Who didn't see this coming?
 

Arizona GOP Asks If Supporters Willing To Die For Trump’s Election Fraud Lies
You can't say things like this to a blindly obedient cult of brainwashed idiots and not expect things to happen. Maybe this is what they're hoping for? All to please the Mango Jeezus? Remember the group the FBI bagged for planning to kidnap/murder the Michigan governor? Don't believe for a minute that they are the only group of Reich-wing radicals out there. Plenty of tRump loons out there ready to save tRump and Murrica from the Democrat soci@list left-wing radical communist heathen hordes.

The fancy word for this instigation is heuristic terrorism. instigators don't know who will answer the calls for violence, but they can bet someone will.

Heuristic terrorism has an interesting sound to it, but Wikipedia is silent.

Notice how #DiaperDon is carefully avoiding any instigation on his own. Leaving it to his sycophants so should anything jump off he can claim innocence and blame others. All the while continuing his "misinformation-for-dollars" campaign.

Notice how the coverage of the virus vaccine instantly changed about a week after the election? Notice how there is now talk about another stimulus package that is lower cost then the stimulus packages right before the election and pelosi said they weren't enough but may now settle for one thats even less dollars still. Talk about playing politics.

Well this is messed up. Let's exempt the people of "color"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt....hite-only/amp/

Russian Times? Dude....smh

I love how Speaker Pelosi drives conservatives to distraction and bouts of howling at the moon when they aren't foaming and frothing. It's like she's living rent free in their heads. :rolleyes::D

I would think the reason for this is obvious, even without reading the article. Our country has not been kind to people of "color" (as you put it), inflicting unrequested medical procedures, providing substandard medical care based on race, doing medical testing without consent, introducing diseases, etc.

From the standpoint of public health it is certainly not ideal to allow people to opt out of vaccines. But people have to trust the government first. This is just another unfortunate challenge from the legacy of racism that we have to contend with.

The university should understand that and do the right thing. In this instance, Cornell is not helping people of color.

The whole second stimulus play is a disgrace. However, at least before the election, Nancy was in one instance honest enough to say to the public: It ain't gonna happen.

What was stunning: the elected progressives kept a low profile. I guess they recognized Nancy as the powerful bag lady and it was in their personal interest to play ball.

I'd be more comfotable if rural whites could also opt out due to moral issues many may have with vaccines.

Ummm ok, make another excuse for people of opposite races to be treated differently. That really helps doesn't it. Were not talking about the 1930's.

And just to clarify Cornell is the one who said people of color.

Pragmatic rule making. The point of making flue shots mandatory is not to punish non-compilers. It is to get people to comply. This strategy works quite well with typical well-socialized white kids without authority issues. It works much less reliably with black kids with sharp suspicion of authority based on long cultural experience. So you'd just wind up punishing a bunch of black non-compilers. This is viewed as pointless and non-desirable.

"Opposite races"? Well, there's a tell. :(

How is that a tell?

Also on the media coverage of the vaccine I find it convenient how there was no sign of having one right before the election and a lot of dems were saying "I'm not taking a vaccine developed under trump". One week after election news completely changed and the vaccine was almost out and ready for use. Even Dr faucis outlook completely changed from we won't see a vaccine till February, to, it's pretty much here yea.

So just wondering are you for or against what Cornell decided?

Against. Eliminate the penalties for all, not just some. Coercive is always authoritarian.

The fact that non-compliance results from alienation from authority, alienation with deep cultural roots going back to slavery, will have a lot of power to explain higher black crime rates, it occurs to me. That, and selective enforcement, and structural racism.

Trust me, it is. I thought the very same thing.

Which dems, dumbfuck? Post your (legitimate) sources, or you're full of crap. :rolleyes:

Nice example of how false naratives are built/maintained and if done long and well enough become true to many.

I see certain members here have found things to squawk about since they can no longer cry about election fraud or #DiaperDon mopping up those nasty Dems come election time :p

There was fear of an 'October surprise' before-the-election vaccine, put out for vote-getting purposes without proper testing and approval. But Trump did not deliver such.

I'm not making any excuses or justifications; I'm saying that there are multiple, competing concerns in this case and that put the university between a rock and several hard places. In an ideal world, everyone would get vaccinated - end of story. (Actually, in an ideal world competent federal leadership would have crafted an unpoliticized, science based response to COVID and none of this would be necessary).

The university wants its students to be safe; it also wants its faculty and staff to be safe. It is also being sensitive to the understandable mistrust of authority among many "people of color." I agree with donquixote99 that a non-coercive approach should be taken.

FWIW, shit happened way later than the 1930s. The Tuskeegee experiment ran from 1932 to 1972. Granted it ended almost fifty years ago, but people remember. And it is far from an isolated incident. Some sources for you to consider, journalistic and academic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/u...om-racism.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354806/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...ccine-efficacy

Cuomo says Americans should be skeptical of vaccine
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...099.html%3famp

The vaccine is not developed by trump.

Seriously, how it a tell?

Ask yourself what you meant by the term "opposite" in this context. Why opposite instead of "different", or the phrase "non-white".

Gee Waggs, do you have to practice at selective reading or does it come naturally? Before you feign ignorance specifically how do you get a "lot of dems were saying "I'm not taking a vaccine developed under trump"" out of those articles you linked to?

After that feel free to continue your deflection from the original topic.

Waggs, just like everyone else here, perceives the world through a complex bias filter. It's why we often don't see what is right in front of us.

You are correct alot was not the term I should have used so I concede that argument. I can say prominent democrats.

https://www.rt.com/usa/506912-biden-...vaccine-trump/

A Democrat who fights back - I like it. :)

"PATERSON, NJ – U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-09) today called on House leaders to sanction Members and exclude from the 117th Congress any Members-elect who are supporting Donald Trump’s efforts to invalidate the 2020 presidential election. Pascrell cites the text of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which disqualifies from service any individuals who seek to attack American democracy, as well as Congress’s power to exclude Members by majority vote as acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in Powell v. McCormack.



“Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress. These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election undoubtedly attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend,” Rep. Pascrell writes House leaders. “Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.”"

https://www.insidernj.com/press-rele...ated-congress/

Oh ok NOW I get it, political correctness gotta love it. In all actuality you could question me the same way if I would have used the word "different" instead. Really the only thing I could have used was non-white but hey when it comes to political correctness words can be twisted to almost infinity.

The words are not the point. The meaning in your mind is the point. Ask yourself if you see black people as others, as different, as opposite. Don't answer here, just answer for yourself.

But on a forum words are the point. If someone wants to project what I say and how it sounds to them then I must say if I don't agree. I answered for myself when I made the post, meaning, "different, opposite, non-white" wasn't the thought in my mind so again I say "political correctness".

'Opposite' sounds pretty 'otherizing,' but if you say not, fine.

Waggs appears to be saying he was just being politically incorrect, which is his right.

The right to be wrong always exists until we get to shouting 'fire' at the wrong time, or to harmful acts. That's not the issue.

Who died and made you issue man? :rolleyes: