[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bots

This is the same man that recommended people inject themselves with disinfectant to fight covid. Are peoples memories really that bad?

…I mean, the response to that I’m sad to say is that…yes, memories are that short because we’re also looking at Nigel Farage leading the UK in the up and coming…the man who lied the voting into Brexit with promises of a better NHS with more funding…but I digress, obviously….but yes, in response to what you say…mass memories and minds can be led on a day to day basis, sadly….

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

This idiot speaks, and people just go along with whatever nonsense he spouts. Honestly, he's never even coherent. There are zero links between tylonol and autism. None.

No amount of couching this BS with per se, will ever make folks just point out the fact that the emperor, is in fact, stark bollock naked.



This is your king, Maru

oh I thought you would get the per se joke, I mean its nonsense, like I say most women wont take any drugs when pregnant, there are women who wont even have chemo never mind popping paracetomol

[Ammi]

…he would be a joke if he wasn’t President of the US and had a position of being one of the most powerful people in the world…that’s what makes him terrifying….

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

This is the same man that recommended people inject themselves with disinfectant to fight covid. Are peoples memories really that bad?

I can't speak for others, but he says so many different things at one time that have random meaning that I tend to just turn off any content where he is talking extensively. I can only endure so much.

Trump is like listening to a verbal circus on wheels but then there are all these minor players that try to keep up with him also. Example: One can find one small part to fixate on when listening to a rally for facts, for example, but then he will move on quickly to something else and it is very easy to get lost in the depths of each claim. After a while it discredits itself as being of any worth listening to.

It's never just one single claim to focus on for a week or so. I think that is by design. The media is too easily rattled by their own inability to correct individual things quickly enough. So much so other priorities start to take over and there is no longer any heirarchy to anything that gets said. So it gets harder to follow and news gets buried this way because there is always a new claim.

As a viewer it's not just monitoring Trump's behavior and speech but then a rabid media also. It's a full time job if you really want to research everything properly.

Btw, Snopes has that claim as mostly false when I looked up a version of a quote. Not that it matters, as so many things get said.

[MTVN]

Well you never know Trump may be right, the links between the two seem inconclusive rather than nonexistent. We normally take an extremely precautionary approach with things like alcohol so why not with drugs too. Some times it's good to challenge the consensus of pharma companies - I think pills of all kinds are far too widely distributed in most of the West but the US has a particular problem with it

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

I can't speak for others, but he says so many different things at one time that have random meaning that I tend to just turn off any content where he is talking extensively. I can only endure so much.

Trump is like listening to a verbal circus on wheels but then there are all these minor players that try to keep up with him also. Example: One can find one small part to fixate on when listening to a rally for facts, for example, but then he will move on quickly to something else and it is very easy to get lost in the depths of each claim. After a while it discredits itself as being of any worth listening to.

It's never just one single claim to focus on for a week or so. I think that is by design. The media is too easily rattled by their own inability to correct individual things quickly enough. So much so other priorities start to take over and there is no longer any heirarchy to anything that gets said. So it gets harder to follow and news gets buried this way because there is always a new claim.

As a viewer it's not just monitoring Trump's behavior and speech but then a rabid media also. It's a full time job if you really want to research everything properly.

Btw, Snopes has that claim as mostly false when I looked up a version of a quote. Not that it matters, as so many things get said.

yes, the dumping of lots of different things on multiple fronts is the trump playbook and it works like a charm every time

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well you never know Trump may be right, the links between the two seem inconclusive rather than nonexistent. We normally take an extremely precautionary approach with things like alcohol so why not with drugs too. Some times it's good to challenge the consensus of pharma companies - I think pills of all kinds are far too widely distributed in most of the West but the US has a particular problem with it

Come on. If the US actually wanted to deal with it's over prescribing of medicines it would ban drug advertisements on TV, but they won't do that, of course, because profits. This is pure RFK ideology.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Maru

I can't speak for others, but he says so many different things at one time that have random meaning that I tend to just turn off any content where he is talking extensively. I can only endure so much.

Trump is like listening to a verbal circus on wheels but then there are all these minor players that try to keep up with him also. Example: One can find one small part to fixate on when listening to a rally for facts, for example, but then he will move on quickly to something else and it is very easy to get lost in the depths of each claim. After a while it discredits itself as being of any worth listening to.

It's never just one single claim to focus on for a week or so. I think that is by design. The media is too easily rattled by their own inability to correct individual things quickly enough. So much so other priorities start to take over and there is no longer any heirarchy to anything that gets said. So it gets harder to follow and news gets buried this way because there is always a new claim.

As a viewer it's not just monitoring Trump's behavior and speech but then a rabid media also. It's a full time job if you really want to research everything properly.

Btw, Snopes has that claim as mostly false when I looked up a version of a quote. Not that it matters, as so many things get said.

Did you vote for this idiot 3 times?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

yes, the dumping of lots of different things on multiple fronts is the trump playbook and it works like a charm every time

It's all being reciprocated at this point though, which undermines the point of opposing bad ideas in the first place. There's no way an average person can keep up with the number of claims, not just by him, but all the people surrounding that, the complex media apparatus, our institutions, etc. That's not even touching international. The media expects too much. Most people work and don't have the time and energy to get involved and deeply research everyone's current political pet peeve. We're forgetting that many people are not partisan and don't follow political matters as a sport. So when they're tuning in to find out out the news... "oh I need to see our biggest concerns"... and they see the media arguing about a poorly phrased tweet from a politician or some other stupid **** Trump has said, they're going to just tune right back out because it's a distraction from their real lives...

I know some in media cried very hard at the prospect of Kimmel's unfunny jokes and terrible takes never being heard again, but it's actually in the media's interest to cut the noise back and to start focusing more on the issues people actually do care about. The problem is it'll never happen because that'll make the political blood sport watchers super mad as not every single claim was addressed the moment it happened and that's the most engaged demographic... and it's an irritating one:

On what planet is the above statement "I would rather listen to medical professionals" controversial?


Saving your scrolls for other uses:

Spoiler:

As a rule, I don't think we should mock people for trying to figure out how to make the best decisions for themselves for the same reason it is wrong to expect science to have all the information ahead of time when science does in fact correct itself overtime to improve a consensus. I agree with @MTVN's that points to this sentiment and I think this is certainly correct. That said, I don't know how they prove or disprove it without getting enough women to agree to play guinea pig (good luck).. it's very hard to get good studies as it probably relies on a lot of self-reports during general care and not a steady dosage or anything...

In the US, there's more medical freedom depending on the area of practice, so there can be doctors that only vaccinate based on the traditional classic schedule with fewer vaccines and only focusing on the necessities. I think that is a good compromise and I know at least one family that does this. I don't know where our care falls and I don't worry about it. Our pediatrician moved across town shortly after we started with her to start her own practice but we now drive about 45 minutes to go see her. That's how much we trust her level of care and expertise.

[joeysteele]

Sorry but to me he's stark raving bonkers more likely.
Although I'd add, probably dangerously so.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Maru

It's all being reciprocated at this point though, which undermines the point of opposing bad ideas in the first place. There's no way an average person can keep up with the number of claims, not just by him, but all the people surrounding that, the complex media apparatus, our institutions, etc. That's not even touching international. The media expects too much. Most people work and don't have the time and energy to get involved and deeply research everyone's current political pet peeve. We're forgetting that many people are not partisan and don't follow political matters as a sport. So when they're tuning in to find out out the news... "oh I need to see our biggest concerns"... and they see the media arguing about a poorly phrased tweet from a politician or some other stupid **** Trump has said, they're going to just tune right back out because it's a distraction from their real lives...

I know some in media cried very hard at the prospect of Kimmel's unfunny jokes and terrible takes never being heard again, but it's actually in the media's interest to cut the noise back and to start focusing more on the issues people actually do care about. The problem is it'll never happen because that'll make the political blood sport watchers super mad as not every single claim was addressed the moment it happened and that's the most engaged demographic... and it's an irritating one:

On what planet is the above statement "I would rather listen to medical professionals" controversial?


Saving your scrolls for other uses:

Spoiler:

As a rule, I don't think we should mock people for trying to figure out how to make the best decisions for themselves for the same reason it is wrong to expect science to have all the information ahead of time when science does in fact correct itself overtime to improve a consensus. I agree with @MTVN's that points to this sentiment and I think this is certainly correct. That said, I don't know how they prove or disprove it without getting enough women to agree to play guinea pig (good luck).. it's very hard to get good studies as it probably relies on a lot of self-reports during general care and not a steady dosage or anything...

In the US, there's more medical freedom depending on the area of practice, so there can be doctors that only vaccinate based on the traditional classic schedule with fewer vaccines and only focusing on the necessities. I think that is a good compromise and I know at least one family that does this. I don't know where our care falls and I don't worry about it. Our pediatrician moved across town shortly after we started with her to start her own practice but we now drive about 45 minutes to go see her. That's how much we trust her level of care and expertise.

You seem to go to a lot of effort to rationalise the irrational when it comes to trump.

[emseateng2014]

even on abc the view they said listen to your doctor and not rfk jr

rfk jr is like the 1st republican kennedy in the kennedy family since arnold aka the terminator even thought arnold was a member of the kennedys through marriage but still was one of them

[Alf]

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Alf

Trump’s statement was stupid and dangerous without any real evidence. But people going on social media showing themselves take it is equally stupid and dangerous as some who prob don’t take it will likely watch, copy and do themselves some harm

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Trump’s statement was stupid and dangerous without any real evidence. But people going on social media showing themselves take it is equally stupid and dangerous as some who prob don’t take it will likely watch, copy and do themselves some harm

Who said Trump didn't have any real evidence?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Alf

Who said Trump didn't have any real evidence?

If you’d like to bring that evidence here if he had some.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

If you’d like to bring that evidence here if he had some.

Why would I be in possession of the evidence? Your answer doesn't even make any sense to the question I asked you.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Alf

Why would I be in possession of the evidence? Your answer doesn't even make any sense to the question I asked you.

Not that difficult to understand.

You’re questioning me saying he had no evidence. I’m asking you to present some if you think he had some, as would be odd if he had something concrete and didn’t share it publicly to back up his claims.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Not that difficult to understand.

You’re questioning me saying he had no evidence. I’m asking you to present some if you think he had some, as would be odd if he had something concrete and didn’t share it to back up his claims.

I'm asking you, who's said that he doesn't have any real evidence? You must have heard someone say it, because you seem for sure that he has no real evidence.

Did someone tell you that or is it just your opinion that you personally don't believe he does?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Alf

I'm asking you, who's said that he doesn't have any real evidence? You must have heard someone say it, because you seem for sure that he has no real evidence.

Did someone tell you that or is it just your opinion that you personally don't believe he does?

He hasn’t presented any concrete evidence.

You believe he has evidence?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Alf

Who said Trump didn't have any real evidence?

any sane person who watched his press conference

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Alf

I'm asking you, who's said that he doesn't have any real evidence? You must have heard someone say it, because you seem for sure that he has no real evidence.

Did someone tell you that or is it just your opinion that you personally don't believe he does?

I didn't watch the parts with the politicians because I don't care what Trump himself says. He had a few doctors on and they mentioned a trend in studies. That's fine, but a few studies is very different than a consensus. His claim is so large, it has to be very rigorous evidence to change the habits of most people, I would think.

[Maru]

Youtube video

[Alf]

This is an interesting tweet from Tylenol themselves back in 2017.

[Alf]

Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is dangerous.