![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMeasles Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field
Hillary Clinton hits GOP with pro-vaccine tweet
Well, ain't that the moment quite a few had been waiting for. As the media has spent the day painting all Republicans as anti-science, flat-earth types (a view that's not entirely devoid of merit, by the way) in light of comments made by Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul on vaccinations, plenty of conservatives must have wondered when Hillary Clinton would finally emerge from her Twitter silence and declare her position. And lo and behold! The bandwagon didn't take long to get overcrowded:
Well, she couldn’t be much more clear than that, could she. "Grandmothers know best", perhaps, but what about those years before she was a grandmother? Because, hey, there was a time when Hillary Clinton also flirted with the theory that vaccinations increase autism risk, the anti-vax group she had been pandering to at the time bearing the ominous name Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning.
Back then, Clinton wrote that she was "committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines". And in response to the question of whether she would support more research into a link between vaccinations and autism rates, Clinton wrote: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out".
Shall we call the current development "evolution of views", potentially a result of a possible obtaining of the insight about that purported link between vaccination and autism that she had been talking about? Or could that merely be skillful pandering to the base and an attempt to put the GOPers in a position where they'd have to either look dumb and Medieval (hey, monthly topic anyone?) or be compelled to acknowledge that she might have a point?
I guess what I'm asking is, was the science "more unclear" when she last ran for president (and lost), than it is today? Just to remind, both Hillary and Obama used to give some credence to the anti-vaccine theories at the time.
As for the issue of whether vaccines are a conspiracy of Big Bad Guvmint + Big Pharma to make us all sick, establish mind control over the enslaved populace, and curb population growth - that's a whole other story, and quite a fascinating one, at that.
Hillary Clinton hits GOP with pro-vaccine tweet
Well, ain't that the moment quite a few had been waiting for. As the media has spent the day painting all Republicans as anti-science, flat-earth types (a view that's not entirely devoid of merit, by the way) in light of comments made by Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul on vaccinations, plenty of conservatives must have wondered when Hillary Clinton would finally emerge from her Twitter silence and declare her position. And lo and behold! The bandwagon didn't take long to get overcrowded:
Well, she couldn’t be much more clear than that, could she. "Grandmothers know best", perhaps, but what about those years before she was a grandmother? Because, hey, there was a time when Hillary Clinton also flirted with the theory that vaccinations increase autism risk, the anti-vax group she had been pandering to at the time bearing the ominous name Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning.
Back then, Clinton wrote that she was "committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines". And in response to the question of whether she would support more research into a link between vaccinations and autism rates, Clinton wrote: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out".
Shall we call the current development "evolution of views", potentially a result of a possible obtaining of the insight about that purported link between vaccination and autism that she had been talking about? Or could that merely be skillful pandering to the base and an attempt to put the GOPers in a position where they'd have to either look dumb and Medieval (hey, monthly topic anyone?) or be compelled to acknowledge that she might have a point?
I guess what I'm asking is, was the science "more unclear" when she last ran for president (and lost), than it is today? Just to remind, both Hillary and Obama used to give some credence to the anti-vaccine theories at the time.
As for the issue of whether vaccines are a conspiracy of Big Bad Guvmint + Big Pharma to make us all sick, establish mind control over the enslaved populace, and curb population growth - that's a whole other story, and quite a fascinating one, at that.
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 19:10 (UTC)Both sides also have anti-fluoridation whackos. Take from that what you will.
Yet there is a fundamental difference. Among these two groups, it is only the GOP that has anti-science nutbars sitting on Congressional committees, and spewing their base idiocy from Capitol Hill. We've got some real nuts over here on the left, but our nuts aren't chairing the House Science Committee.
So yeah, at the end of the day, people are people, and you're going to have people of all kinds in every group. But only one group keeps (gleefully, I might add) electing these ignoramuses to national office.
(And while nuts on both sides have led to a shameful measles outbreak here in the U.S., it's primarily one side's nuts that are refusing to act to prevent future droughts, famines, scarcity wars, and potential human extinction.)
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 22:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 18:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 21:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/15 06:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/15 11:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/15 15:47 (UTC)