Evident #1: Harris' Vaccine Vow

  
By:  TᵢG  •  10 months ago  •  53 comments


Evident #1:   Harris' Vaccine Vow
Harris vowed to take and support the vaccine if recommended by public health professionals.   

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers


This is issue #1 in a series intended to debunk silly talking points.


During the VP debate, the following exchange took place:


Q:  If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election should Americans take it and would you take it?

A: If the public health professionals ... if Dr Fauci ... if the doctors tell us that we should take it I'll be the first in line to take it absolutely.   But if Donald Trump tells us I should that we should take it I'm not taking it.

Both the question and the answer are easy to understand.   The question probed to see if Harris would take the vaccine developed while Trump was in office and recommend same to the American people.

Harris' answer consisted of two sentences.   The first sentence answered the question.   The second took a stab at Trump's credibility.

Her answer (first sentence) was that she would take it if public health professionals (doctors) recommend it.   Indeed she emphasized that she would be first line and noted 'absolutely' which means:

absolutely (Oxford) ≡  "With no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally."

Thus Harris expressed that IF public health professionals recommended the 'Trump vaccine' that she would be first in line to take it with no qualification, restriction or limitation.

Her jab (second sentence) attacked Trump's credibility:   "But if Donald Trump tells us I should that we should take it I'm not taking it."   This means that she would not take the vaccine based on the recommendation of Trump.   In short, she does not consider Trump a valid source for recommending the vaccine.

Putting this together:   Harris absolutely will take the vaccine and (implicitly based on the question) recommend it to the American people if public health professionals recommend it.    She will not, however, take it based on the recommendation of Trump.

Some find a way to ignore her actual answer: "If the public health professionals ... if Dr Fauci ... if the doctors tell us that we should take it I'll be the first in line to take it absolutely" and instead only recognize her jab at Trump:  "But if Donald Trump tells us I should that we should take it I'm not taking it.".   In result, they claim erroneously that Harris stated that she would not take the 'Trump vaccine'.

Not only is this a fascinating failure to comprehend basic English, but it defies logic.   The 'Trump vaccine' is the very vaccine that Biden and Harris were planning to distribute to the American people once they were elected.    It would be political suicide for the Biden team to discredit the 'Trump vaccine' that they needed to fight the pandemic.


Harris vowed to take and support the vaccine if recommended by public health professionals.   


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  author  TᵢG    10 months ago

There are too many blatantly obvious facts that somehow are ignored to push silly partisan talking points.   This is the first of likely many articles that do nothing more than illustrate the evident based on hard evidence.   In this case, the hard evidence is the actual question and actual answer.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1    10 months ago

Thanks TiG for straightening this out, but who knows what some people are always waging partisan political battles over, again and again? These people seem to not want to get along with others not aligned with their points of view!  VP Harris is a  former AG of California she very well and expertly knows how to word a 'strong' assertion. (Smile.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1    10 months ago

Thing is, this is blatantly obvious.   If not for blind partisanship there would be no need to write an article to illustrate something this obvious.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     10 months ago

Damn the facts full steam ahead with partisan BS.

Also, she slept her way to the vice presidency, has a funny laugh, and has no accomplishments in her life. These are considered facts in today's partisan political world.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Kavika @2    10 months ago
These are considered facts in today's partisan political world.

All while the GOP desperately prays for dirt on the targeted Hunter, as Jared pulls off a $2 Billion dollar Saudi Deal he's not qualified for, ( similar to Hunter there). How can intelligent people not see the diferernce ? both Wrong, but to me, im seeing two completely separate issues. I view both as wrong,but Jared was IN OUR WHITE HOUSE AS TRUMPS TOP ADSVISOR, big difference, at least to me.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    10 months ago

Still trying to defend this cackling imbecile I see. Says a lot about anyone who supports her.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3    10 months ago

Make a thoughtful point or leave.    Partisan hyperbole followed by an insult to members is simply trolling.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

"The second took a stab at Trump's credibility."


Oh, is that what it did?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5  Nerm_L    10 months ago

Another distinction without a difference.  Harris deliberately chose to play politics with vaccination.  So, Harris said she would and wouldn't take the vaccine; her backside had political cover either way.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5    10 months ago
Harris deliberately chose to play politics with vaccination. 

Yeah, Nerm, that is what I noted.   Her second statement was a political jab.   

So, Harris said she would and wouldn't take the vaccine; her backside had political cover either way.

If health professionals recommend the vaccine (which of course they did ... no big surprise there), she committed absolutely to take it and anything Trump says at that point is irrelevant.   Partisan blindness to not see this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    10 months ago
If health professionals recommend the vaccine (which of course they did ... no big surprise there), she committed absolutely to take it and anything Trump says at that point is irrelevant.   Partisan blindness to not see this.

Harris delivered a mixed message to score political points.  The example provides some understanding why the public has been confused about vaccination.  The example also provides some insight into how vaccination became a political litmus test.

A leader would have answered with an unqualified 'yes'.  The issue was too important to muddle the message with politics.  What the example actually highlights is that Kamala Harris is only a politician and not a leader.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    10 months ago

Harris vowed to absolutely (no caveats) take the vaccine (sic) if health professionals (like Fauci) recommend it.

Do you comprehend that or not?

What the example actually highlights is that Kamala Harris is only a politician and not a leader.

I agree, but that is NOT the point.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    10 months ago
Harris vowed to absolutely (no caveats) take the vaccine (sic) if health professionals (like Fauci) recommend it. Do you comprehend that or not?

There are no caveats.  Period.  The COVID vaccines would not become available without review by health professionals.  Harris created an arbitrary distinction without a difference.  Trump wasn't relevant and didn't need to be included.

Harris shot the Biden administration in the foot by turning vaccination into a political litmus test.  Harris explicitly stated she would only take the vaccine based upon who she believed.  So, if you don't believe Trump then don't take the vaccine.  But that establishes the condition that if you don't believe Biden then don't take the vaccine.  Harris established a political criteria for vaccination based upon political belief.

Can't you comprehend that Harris threw science under the bus to score a cheap political point?  You know, Trump has been vaccinated and has recommended getting vaccinated.  But politicians like Harris made a Trump endorsement valueless.  Turning vaccination into a political litmus test meant that opposing Biden politically required opposing vaccination and a Trump endorsement wouldn't change that.

The example is a test of political leadership.  And Kamala Harris miserably failed that test of political leadership.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    10 months ago
There are no caveats.  Period. 

Correct.   Harris unequivocally vowed to enthusiastically ("first in line") take the vaccine(s) if health professionals recommended it.

Trump wasn't relevant and didn't need to be included.

Correct.   It was a political jab.   How many times need I note this for it to register?

Can't you comprehend that Harris threw science under the bus to score a cheap political point?  

Following the recommendations of professionals based on science is not throwing science under the bus.   Deeming Trump's recommendation to be of no scientific / healthcare concern is jabbing Trump politically.   You recognize that Trump cannot speak for science, right?

And Kamala Harris miserably failed that test of political leadership.

Not the point.   Try to focus.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    10 months ago
And Kamala Harris miserably failed that test of political leadership.
Not the point.   Try to focus.

Actually it is the point. The only point that counts. Biden and Harris politicized the vaccine in order to win an election. They directly questioned the viability of any vaccine that Trump endorsed- which he endorsed all 3.

Biden and Harris tied Trump to the vaccines as much as Trump did. They were the Trump vaccines.

With deaths from the coronavirus nearing 200,000 in the United States, Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Wednesday assailed President Trump for playing politics with a potential coronavirus vaccine , saying he did not trust Mr. Trump to determine when a vaccine was ready for Americans. “Let me be clear: I trust vaccines,” Mr. Biden said. “I trust scientists. But I don’t trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people can’t either.”

Speaking from his home base of Wilmington, Delaware, on Wednesday, Biden argued that such a vaccine should only be approved by adhering to rigorous safety standards.

“Scientific breakthroughs don’t care about calendars any more than the virus does. They certainly don’t adhere to election cycles. And their timing, their approval and distribution, should never, ever be distorted by political considerations,” he said.

Earlier, Republican U.S. Representative Brad Wenstrup, a physician and Trump supporter, dismissed those concerns in a call with reporters, saying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would ensure any new vaccine was safe.

They put winning an election over the safety of the American people, period.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.5    10 months ago
The only point that counts. B

The point of this article is to illustrate that Harris vowed to take the vaccine, without condition, if healthcare professionals recommended it.

The partisan talking point claims that she said she would not take the vaccine.   That is false.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    10 months ago
Correct.   Harris unequivocally vowed to enthusiastically ("first in line") take the vaccine(s) if health professionals recommended it.

No matter how many times that is repeated, there's no way to eliminate Harris' qualifying 'if'.  Harris declared she would be vaccinated 'if' her criteria of belief had been satisfied.  Harris included a caveat for not receiving the vaccine, too.

Claiming that Harris said she would unequivocally be vaccinated is false.  Including an 'if' as a condition is an equivocation.

The correct response would have been 'when the vaccines are approved get vaccinated'.  The vaccines would not have been available without approval by the FDA and CDC.  So, it really didn't matter what health professionals recommended.  

Following the recommendations of professionals based on science is not throwing science under the bus.   Deeming Trump's recommendation to be of no scientific / healthcare concern is jabbing Trump politically.   You recognize that Trump cannot speak for science, right?

Kamala Harris cannot speak for science, either.  Harris is not a health professional.  So, a recommendation by Harris would as scientifically valueless as a recommendation by Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    10 months ago
No matter how many times that is repeated, there's no way to eliminate Harris' qualifying 'if'. 

Nerm, where do you see me trying to eliminate the IF?   I quote the woman.   I note the condition of the IF.   To not see this is blindness.

Her statement is conditioned on who recommends.   IF health professionals recommend the vaccine(s) she stated that she would unequivocally take it:

If the public health professionals ... if Dr Fauci ... if the doctors tell us that we should take it I'll be the first in line to take it absolutely.  

The word absolutely is what emphasizes that her response is unequivocable given recommendation by health professionals.

Surely you understand this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    10 months ago
Nerm, where do you see me trying to eliminate the IF?   I quote the woman.   I note the condition of the IF.   To not see this is blindness.

Her statement is conditioned on who recommends.   IF health professionals recommend the vaccine(s) she stated that she would unequivocally take it:

If the public health professionals ... if Dr Fauci ... if the doctors tell us that we should take it I'll be the first in line to take it absolutely.  

The word absolutely is what emphasizes that her response is unequivocable given recommendation by health professionals.

Surely you understand this.

What part of Harris' statement "But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I'm not taking it" is difficult to understand?  Seems like a pretty clear marker that doesn't have anything to do with recommendations by health professionals.  That statement appears to be nothing more than a political litmus test.

The flip side of that political litmus test is "if Joe Biden tells us that we should take it, I'm not taking it".  Harris' message is that if your political opponent tells you to take the vaccine then don't take it to make a political statement.  That's the political litmus test.

By creating a political litmus test, vaccination (as well as mitigation measures) become a political statement that has little or nothing to do with recommendations by health professionals.  Kamala Harris provided an example of how the pandemic was politicized and why mitigation measures and vaccination became political statements.

Politicizing the pandemic may score political points but that doesn't demonstrate political leadership.  Kamala Harris miserably failed the test of political leadership.  Harris was more concerned about scoring political points than she was concerned about the country.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.9    10 months ago
Seems like a pretty clear marker that doesn't have anything to do with recommendations by health professionals.  That statement appears to be nothing more than a political litmus test.

You are repeating yourself.   I have stated, quite clearly, that her second statement was a partisan jab at Trump.   If you cannot see that in my comments then you are not reading.   If you did see it and are pretending I did not write it then you are trolling.    Which is it?

Kamala Harris cannot speak for science, either.  Harris is not a health professional.  So, a recommendation by Harris would as scientifically valueless as a recommendation by Trump.

Yes.   In both her case and Trump's, the recommendation would be a political recommendation.   Her political recommendation would, according to her, be based on the recommendation of health professionals.

See?   And do you also see that this has nothing to do with the point?    The point being that ...

Harris unequivocally ("absolutely") vowed to enthusiastically ("first in line") take the vaccine(s) if health professionals recommended it.   

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.10    10 months ago

May be a little off topic yet I think it is almost comical that they were, are, all upset with her for taking a jab at trump, when trump took jabs at everyone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @5.1.11    10 months ago

'They' are doing everything they can to deflect from the obvious.    It is the phenomenon of partisan's cavalierly tossing truth to the wayside;  the only thing they care about is arguing that the other side is wrong.   Truth, to them, is clearly irrelevant.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.12    10 months ago

It is almost like giving a standard for one side to uphold that they do not uphold themselves.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
5.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @5.1.11    10 months ago

Wasn’t it a jab at Ivanka with the C word.  They forgot that the C word is Ok when used by a woman.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.14    10 months ago

And that has to do with?

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
5.1.16  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @5.1.13    10 months ago

That's funny...   because of what both sides do in real life and what both sides do on this board daily...   

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.16    10 months ago

If so then why all the outrage over her one simple phrase.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
5.1.18  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @5.1.15    10 months ago

It had to do with your 5.1.11 comment.  Perhaps you were thinking of a different jab.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.19  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.10    10 months ago

Yes, those capable of basic understanding should naturally feel insulted when efforts are made to deceive them with dishonesty.

Especially the rank kind that fools nobody...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.20  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.14    10 months ago

Presuming you are familiar with Harris' two sentence answer to the question, do you hold that Harris vowed to, absolutely, take the vaccine if healthcare professionals recommended it?

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
5.1.21  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @5.1.17    10 months ago

You see outrage where I see calculated partisan play.  Harris used the vaccine to attack Trump and the Republicans selectively used her words to attack her over the vaccine.  Neither side is honest or clean in this fight.  

Harris said she would take the vaccine if it was approved and recommended by medical personal.  It was (CDC among others) and she received the shots.  Harris also used the vaccine to attack Trump by calling it the "Trump vaccine" among other things.  So she's not clean in this mud slinging any more than the other side on the right is.  

But the only outrage I really see is from the people from each side that continue to use it to attack each other.  There are more important things to talk about but for some reason people just can't get past this sort of shit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.22  author  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.21    10 months ago
Harris said she would take the vaccine if it was approved and recommended by medical personal.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

Harris also used the vaccine to attack Trump by calling it the "Trump vaccine" among other things. 

Indeed she did!   It was a partisan jab designed to discredit Trump.


In summary (not for you since you get it):

Sentence 1 stated the condition for her taking the vaccine and if that condition was met, she would absolutely and enthusiastically take it (and thus recommend it).

Sentence 2 was a partisan hit on Trump.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.21    10 months ago

It is just to the point for me that the constant mud slinging, if not out right lies, yes the likes that trump brought on, get louder, when someone finally says something back it is like an aha moment. An I got you moment, see she is just as bad as everyone else.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
5.1.24  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @5.1.23    10 months ago
It is just to the point for me that the constant mud slinging, if not out right lies, yes the likes that trump brought on, get louder, when someone finally says something back it is like an aha moment. An I got you moment, see she is just as bad as everyone else.

This is what political discourse has degraded to, a series of "got cha" moments.  

Forget all the drama over who owns twitter or who wins in November or in 24.  As this trend in politics and the national discourse continues to degrade, this is what will kill democracy. Until we can put this shit behind us, not be triggered to "beat" the other side with cherry-picked facts, to actually listen and discuss topics without the need to attack the other participant we will not be able to save our democracy.  Just my opinion...  (and I'm sure there are some on this very board who will read this and believe I'm just being overly dramatic but those are from what I have seen among the worst at slandering and mud-slinging with their cherry-picked snippets.)

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.24    10 months ago

You may lean too far right on some things Imo as I am sure you think I lean to left of certain things. Yet you always are open to dialogue. I appreciate that.

I kinda have to agree with you. What will be our downfall will be ourselves.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.26  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    10 months ago

What the answer illustrates is Kamala Harris would not risk her life taking a shot based on a time-table set by political expediency. The message was muddled because Trump by that point (and I believe conservative 'talking heads,' pundits, Fox News, and opinion writers) were openly 'countermanding' and in the midst of the process of invalidating Dr. Fauci and the CDC through policy 'rebellion.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.27  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    10 months ago

Untrue, period. The vaccines were embroiled in 'heated' propoganda of the 'moment.' And I would not have taken it if Trump said so. BTW, he took the vaccine later and did not alert the public that he and his family were vaccinated. Trump let the 'debate' regarding is stance rage on for months after leaving the White House and he was 'exposed' as having been vaccinated by others.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6  Sean Treacy    10 months ago

Lol..  Even your supposed exoneration is a nod to conspiracy theorists.  How the hell would a Trump backed vaccine exist outside of the regulatory process? From October 2020:

If Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.”

What does that even mean? Harris knows that Trump isn’t cooking up a serum in the basement of the White House. She knows that big pharma isn’t going to intentionally release unsafe vaccines to destroy their companies. She knows that Trump can’t force the FDA to release those unsafe vaccines. She, and others, are generating doubt about a potentially life-saving drug to win an election.

What does that even mean? Harris knows that Trump isn’t cooking up a serum in the basement of the White House. She knows that big pharma isn’t going to intentionally release unsafe vaccines to destroy their companies. She knows that Trump can’t force the FDA to release those unsafe vaccines. She, and others, are generating doubt about a potentially life-saving drug to win an election.

Kamala Harris & Coronavirus Vaccine: Playing Politics with the Pandemic | National Review

But how you believe this illogical fantasy  about a Trump vaccine existing separately  from Pfizer, Moderna  etc somehow absolves her of claiming that, with regards to the vaccine,   Trump would muzzle scientists, and that  dissenting scientists would be suppressed?  You don't think that drove  vaccine skepticism?

The truth is Harris and Biden spent the months leading up to the election sewing anxiety about the vaccine, claiming the vaccines would be released despite they were   "n ot likely to go through all the tests that need to be done and the trials that are needed to be done"

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    10 months ago
How the hell would a Trump backed vaccine exist outside of the regulatory process?

It would not.  Clearly this is the vaccine that would be used to fight the pandemic.   It would be political suicide to reject an approved vaccine that is recommended by health professionals merely because Trump recommended it too.

The truth is ...

The truth is that Biden and Harris knew that the only vaccines they could use to fight the pandemic were those developed under the Trump administration.   An alternative 'truth' where they sought to discredit the vaccine they needed is self-refuting.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    10 months ago
t would not.  Clearly this is the vaccine that would be used to fight the pandemic. 

So we agree Harris's argument is logically nonsensical.  The only point of it is to scare voters that Trump is improperly  interfering in the approval process of the vaccines, a point made explicit on other stages.  

 An alternative 'truth' where they sought to discredit the vaccine they needed is self-refuting.

But they obviously did. You can't bury your head in the sand and ignore their claims that Trump would muzzle scientists or release vaccines before adequate testing was done.  

You realize they were making these claims in the middle of election season right? Their goal was to be elected, not to "fight the pandemic"

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    10 months ago
So we agree Harris's argument is logically nonsensical. 

She did not make an argument, Sean.    She made two statements:

  1. If the public health professionals ... if Dr Fauci ... if the doctors tell us that we should take it I'll be the first in line to take it absolutely.   
  2. But if Donald Trump tells us I should that we should take it I'm not taking it.

1 is a vow to absolutely (no caveats) take the vaccine (sic) if health professionals (like Fauci) recommend it.

2 is a jab at Trump suggesting that his recommendation alone is worthless.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    10 months ago

I guess you missed this.   "Harris knows that Trump isn’t cooking up a serum in the basement of the White House. She knows that big pharma isn’t going to intentionally release unsafe vaccines to destroy their companies. She knows that Trump can’t force the FDA to release those unsafe vaccines. She, and others, are generating doubt about a potentially life-saving drug to win an election."   

And the debate,  of course,  was not the only time she engaged on the subject. Her entire record on the subject is  relevant.

Tell me, did  going on CNN and claiming scientists  would not have the last say on the efficacy of a vaccine but would in fact be muzzled serve to discredit the vaccine or not?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    10 months ago
I guess you missed this. 

This article focuses exclusively on Harris' answer to a question during the 2020 vice-presidential debate.   If you wish to explore other elements of Harris write your own article.   

Harris, in her debate answer, unequivocally vowed to take the virus if recommended by healthcare professionals.   If you can show that to be wrong then take your shot.   If not, attempts to deflect from this focus are off-topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    10 months ago
This article focuses exclusively on Harris' answer to a question during the 2020 vice-presidential debate.   If you wish to explore other elements of Harris write your own article.    Harris unequivocally vowed to take the virus if recommended by healthcare professionals.   If you can show that to be wrong then take your shot.   If not, attempts to deflect from this focus are off-topic.

Since the name of Harris is mentioned, all of her comments are deemed relevant to the discussion. I have been told many times that if a word is in the text of the article, then all comments regarding that word is relevant and allowed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    10 months ago
Since the name of Harris is mentioned, all of her comments are deemed relevant to the discussion.

I determine what is on-topic in this article.   This topic is narrowly focused on Harris' two sentence answer to a question during the 2020 VP debate.   Attempts to talk about other aspects of Harris are off-topic.

By your reasoning, an article that speaks of Trump's golf game allows one to deflect into his tax records, his political failures, his kids, his relationship with Putin, etc.    Almost nothing would be off-topic.

Here, either focus on Harris' two sentence answer to the debate question or leave.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    10 months ago
I determine what is on-topic in this article.   This topic is narrowly focused on Harris' two sentence answer to a question during the 20Exactlyout other aspects of Harris are off-topic. By your reasoning, an article that speaks of Trump's golf game allows one to deflect into his tax records, his political failures, his kids, his relationship with Putin, etc.    Almost nothing would be off-topic.

My "reasoning" is what I have seen first hand and been told by the mods here. If something or someone is mentioned, no matter how briefly or in whatever context, it is fair game to talk about.

Perhaps you should direct your comments to a mod.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    10 months ago

End the meta now Texan.   Do you have anything you wish to offer on this topic?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    10 months ago

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.10  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    10 months ago

[]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    10 months ago

What this debate seems to be leaving out (although I have not read all the comments) is that when Harris evoked Trumps name as a possible reason to be wary of any vaccine he promoted, she was implicitly referencing Trumps history of recommending bs treatments for covid such as hydroxychloroquine and injecting some sort of bleach like substance into human bodies. In other words, Trump had a history of wanting to bypass the medical establishment in his rush to proclaim the pandemic over . That is the context of Harris statement about a "Trump vaccine", and it was a very reasonable statement on her part. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @7    10 months ago

The talking point that I am addressing is the one that claims that Harris was against taking the vaccine based on her debate answer.

That talking point is absurdly false as illustrated in the article.

I agree with Harris that nobody should take the vaccine simply on the word of Trump but rather to rely on health professionals.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7    10 months ago

Except for the fact that Trump never recommended those treatments

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
8  Paula Bartholomew    10 months ago

People need to do their own research and follow the science.  I did and took the vaccine on what I found out, not because someone said to.

 
 

Who is online


GregTx
Drinker of the Wry
Greg Jones
Sean Treacy
JBB


26 visitors