Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And he told his followers not to take it, instead taking about other quack remedies. Repeated by Fox news and OANN, also telling people not to take the vaccines. It's why primarily Republican voters did not take the vaccines.
The analysis also examines differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated Republicans. Unvaccinated Republicans are more likely than vaccinated ones to believe that the news exaggerates the seriousness of the pandemic (88% v. 54%) and that getting vaccinated is a personal choice (96% v. 73%).
President Donald Trump presided over the fastest vaccine development process in history, leading to abundant, free vaccines in the US by the spring of 2021. Although the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines haven’t been able to stop transmission of the virus, they have been highly effective against hospitalization and death, saving hundreds of thousands of lives and rendering the majority of new Covid-19 deaths preventable.
Trump has received three doses of the vaccine. But many of his most dedicated supporters have refused, and many have died as a result. Why? Obvious culprits include misinformation on social media and Fox News and the election of Joe Biden, which placed a Democrat at the top of the US government throughout the vaccine distribution period. But if you look closely at the data, you’ll see that vaccine-hesitant conservatives largely made up their mind well before the vaccines were available and before Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.
And Fox’s most popular primetime host, Tucker Carlson, devoted nearly the first 20 minutes of his show in September of 2021 to Biden’s COVID efforts, saying the rules require people to submit to being bullied.
“You can’t allow people to force you to take drugs that you don’t want or that you don’t need,” Carlson said. “It’s up to you what drugs you take, period. If you allow people to force you to take drugs you don’t want, you’re done. They own you. You’re no longer free, period.”
Tucker has long been an opponent of the vaccine, even though his boy fast tracked it for public use. Why? For the reason above: it's distribution was something that Biden took up. Therefore, even though Trump got it going, it was automatically evil when Biden was distributing it.
Quote:
Lock downs did not do anything except to damage the US economy.
I didn't know lockdowns were a US thing? Weren't they worldwide?
Actually lock down helped reduce airborn pollution which benefitted people with asthma and provided other positive offsets
And there were negatives as well
But lockdown DID have positives for the economy too
Amazon stock and other retailers with Internet business did great
Delivery services did well
Internet streaming like Netflix and Roku did well
Games companies/toys saw profits
Bike companies did very well as more people took up cycling
Yeah, lockdowns were such a positive that thousands of businesses closed, never to reopen, and we had a recession.
Not to mention the lost productivity from countless businesses that were able to remain open and the millions of kids who lost academic as well as cognitive standing and abilities from being isolated at home, many with parents who themselves can't add 2+2 and get the same answer three times in a row.
Ummm Trump handled the pandemic very well and started the process to get two vaccines approved in record time. It was democratic run states the had the worst problems and still do.
On the vaccines, Wrong. He called the head of the FDA and threatened his job if he didnt ok the vaccine by Friday. Thats NOT how the FDA approves vaccines. maybe thats why so many people had problems with it. It can take years in trials to adjust the formula to eliminate these problems. Trump cared nothing about this, he just wanted to use it as a means to embellish himself. You have to remember, EVERYTHING is about him.
I know this is not the exact right forum to post, but many people drive here.
Right now very few countries are buying Russian oil, after the war, will countries still not buy it? If so, gas prices might average above above 4$ for a very long time.
Sure will. Countries can’t all afford.to subsidize higher cost alternatives, China is building new coal powered plants which are cheaper and dirtier than oil. Those using cheaper energy sources will be able tomafford more other stuff and approach economies of so called wealthier countries now that russia and soon China show us what a flawed idea globalism is
Sure will. Countries can’t all afford.to subsidize higher cost alternatives, China is building new coal powered plants which are cheaper and dirtier than oil. Those using cheaper energy sources will be able tomafford more other stuff and approach economies of so called wealthier countries now that russia and soon China show us what a flawed idea globalism is
Well, China has a lot of coal but very little oil and natural gas though coal consumption has dramatically leveled off over the last decade where there's fluctuation but little overall growth despite the massive GDP growth. However, it also gets sunlight so it's put up a lot of solar power as well though the funny thing is their solar insolation isn't generally very good near most of its major population centers. However, they've brought down the cost of solar power so much that it doesn't really matter. Electricity generation went from a peak of 81% sourced from coal in 2007 when renewables (mostly hydro at the time) made up 16% of electricity generation to about 60% in 2021 while renewables, this time with a far more diverse set of sources, made up about 30% of electricity generated even as total energy generation has more than doubled in that time period. So while they haven't forsaken coal, especially for other uses that aren't electrical generation and especially as so many of the coal plants are still relatively recent as in within the last couple of decades, they've definitely gone pretty fully into solar and to some degree wind as the levelized cost of electricity when you're adding new production is oftentimes much cheaper than any other source.
Trump and Biden both SUCK. Of course so does Putin. I don't know what the right answer is, but we (us AND Russia) could definitely use some better choices for presidents.
With that being said, being energy independent does have a nice ring to it. In my opinion, producing more oil of our own, while buying less oil from countries that we hate would definitely be worth it, even if it didn't always mean the cheapest prices.
Unfortunately I think my point of view is in the minority. The vast majority of people tend to want the cheapest price, no matter what. If that means we keep giving huge sacks of money to the countries that we hate (and who in turn, hate us) so be it.
Sure will. Countries can’t all afford.to subsidize higher cost alternatives, China is building new coal powered plants which are cheaper and dirtier than oil. Those using cheaper energy sources will be able tomafford more other stuff and approach economies of so called wealthier countries now that russia and soon China show us what a flawed idea globalism is
The Chinese think long way into the future. The already have some strongholds on oil around the world. Oil is what powers the war machines (aircraft, tanks, trucks, ships, and so on). So they use coal to produce electricity because it is cheaper than fuel, while the amass oil. China is number 13 of 15 nations that control the oil market but is number one importer of oil.
The Chinese think long way into the future. The already have some strongholds on oil around the world. Oil is what powers the war machines (aircraft, tanks, trucks, ships, and so on). So they use coal to produce electricity because it is cheaper than fuel, while the amass oil. China is number 13 of 15 nations that control the oil market but is number one importer of oil.
Lol, wut. China's rulers over the last couple of decades has been trying to transition out of oil as quickly as they can without collapsing their GDP growth since they need sustained rapid growth in order to keep people happy there and they can't do it with too much tied into a resource that is expensive and which they have very little domestically. While oil consumption overall has continued to grow, it's at least been rather steady rather than exponential as their GDP growth has been. They see their need for oil as a drain and something to avoid. They also at least see some degree of climate risk from consumption as they've also invested massive amounts of money in resiliency projects for their many valuable coastal cities as well as tried to (more or less unsuccessfully) reverse desertification issues near Beijing and the massive cities around it. How do you just blather with such conviction about things you very apparently have no knowledge in?
You, too, can try to think long into the future, but unfortunately a lot of people on this forum don't seem to keen on it and instead will pick up braindead articles with almost no scientific merit to bandy about as it's a cheaper and easier solution than actually trying to work towards policy that requires groundwork but is ultimately far more beneficial than continuing as is.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-23-2022 at 08:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
