We know when the "experts" are lying through their teeth.
You think you know more than the experts?
1. There are experts with different conclusions than other experts.
2. What is an expert?
The reason that I (and I imagine you) don't get a say in it because I have nothing useful to contribute to the expert debate. So I just trust them and the system
I am not lettered and in the formative intelligencia. However, I
can self-educate, and make a conscious, active choice to study while being mindful of lying to myself (aka confirmation bias).
I studied carefully early into the covid debacle, dug around and skirted the mainstream on both sides (actually three sides existed in bulk) of the development and read or listened to divergent ‘expert’ opinions.
That didn’t make me an expert but it made me able to make valid decisions for myself. Mostly, I discovered that most experts are talking out of their hats. I learned that there are valid experts, and some of those weren’t always right.
I certainly became stalwart in distrusting “the system.” Trump or Biden, no matter; the status quo had momentum and operated fully intact under either administration.
Be careful the experts you believe.
Your conclusion ignores that since you drove a lot, you would likely be a better driver, able to anticipate the mistakes of others.
That’s totally inaccurate. I looked up cdc and dot statistics trying to compare another relative risk to relative covid risk to make a personal assessment.
The people who have spend a life time studying the subject.
“They” are not a homogeneous subset. Much divergent opinion exists but wasn’t platformed, or literally was deplatformed. Just disagreeing with the status quo doesn’t automatically make them wrong. It did make them drowned out or unheard. A self-declared or appointed ‘expert’ even if credentialed is not necessarily an authority on the subject at hand. And even so, they kept pushing the covid shot when omicron was introduced even though statistically the variant essentially had no barrier from the vaccination. Why? Natural immunity is as good statistically as the covid shot in avoiding hospitalization so- what’s the point? The lesser risk under omicron and it’s highly transmissible nature pretty much vaccinated everyone at this point. T-cell response is present- permanently.
It doesn't matter if the vaccine is less or more safe than a flu shot, what matters is that the vaccine is safer than getting covid.
That’s not yet a supportable opinion- maybe it will be someday. Maybe it won’t. And it matters greatly that it’s less safe than a flu shot. We don’t even know what the long term effects of any covid shot is yet. It’s still an experiment, still in trials.
You are entitled to your opinion on this as well, but considering the war on drugs failed big time, you might want to look at alternatives.
I’m perfectly fine with a wall. Even Bill Clinton pondered the issue.
Look- the USA is a nation of immigrants. We will sidestep the Native American cultural tragedy and slavery as those are known ‘issues’ that darken an otherwise noble history and not relevant to my point. Immigration is not a problem- illegal immigrants are a problem. That’s my point. We have enough people on government handouts that could take a job that illegals currently perform if they needed to eat. But they don’t- welfare as a lifestyle is too big of a government program. Make them work to eat. Make them work to have healthcare.
No worries.
Sadly you are mistaken and I really want you to be right as I dislike bureaucracy. At best unregulated would mean that contracts are not enforceable, at worst we would look at a robber baron society.
Unregulated doesn’t mean non-enforceable contracts. And I think you know that: just an example of selective use of intellect for posture.
How much greater would your chances be of dying in a car accident if you were distracted by heavy painful coughing and brain fog from covid?
i don’t think there’s data on that.
So when Donald Trump is indicted for a high crime over classified documents and obstruction and is proven guilty, what punishment would you think is appropriate?
I do not have enough study in the aspects of US Code nor do I have a barrister’s library on hand so I am unable to determine what is appropriate under the law. Regardless of my politics, I certainly hope he’s not convicted of those charges. With that precedent I don’t think any living president would survive scrutiny. On second thought as much as I dislike Carter politically I would suspect he wasn’t guilty of anything but poor judgement.
If Trump is, however, legitimately charged and convicted he deserves to be held accountable under US Law. If he is not charged, or is charged and acquitted, or is guilty, I hope equal jurisprudence is leveled against Biden - who has been called more corrupt than the Clintons- because he’s been talked about as corrupt for what? over ten years. Having said that:
what do you think? 2 hands? ...or a hand and 20 years on the rock?
In hindsight, I think of various situations in my lifetime with presidents…
The situation most applicable is Richard Nixon. In hindsight, his pardon was probably wise and appropriate. Clinton survived his indiscretions as well. And Bush jr. with poor control over intel.
All mostly because so many in Washington don’t really want the microscope on them because their hands are not clean, either.
