https://twitter.com/i/status/1718153125125574695
"I was on the board of my kids' school during COVID. I wanted a harsher lockdown policy. In retrospect: I was wrong. The damage to kids of keeping them out of school longer was greater than the risk. But here's the bottom line: We were doing our best. But let's give a little grace and forgiveness for the shit show that was COVID."
Scott Galloway
How long will it take before the "trans" medical-industrial complex says something similar? When will we hear Drs and politicians saying "How could we have possibly known? We did our best, how about a little forgiveness and grace?"
15 comments:
There had been an effective protocol for dealing with viral spread. The knowledge that masking was ineffective for impeding the spread of viral contamination was not in the least unknown. It became quite clear rather quickly that children were unlikely to contract covid. I don't have any grace for those who clearly should have known better than to impose such draconian restrictions during the covid scare.
It'll take far longer for the "trans" medical-industrial complex to humble themselves given there's a serious war against morality, family and the culture which needs to be won. Can't admit error about "gender" and still expect to defeat people of faith and reason.
Obviously, we knew and ignored plenty of evidence regarding the spread of COVID at the time. Yet we've also learned much about it since then. I agree that people who willfully ignored the data asking for grace is ridiculous.
Yes, the trans-industrial complex is a part of some larger societal movements. However, I suspect that there will be a point where the evidence of mutilated bodies will be so overwhelming that they'll have to acknowledge the carnage. But obviously the removing of these fundamental distinctions around sex and family all point to a society where the nuclear family is supplanted by something else.
I regularly think of those two Bakersfield, CA doctors who very, very early on spoke against masking, and how exposing one's self to a virus helps build immunity to it. And of course how routine it was for mothers back in the 60's an prior to allow their healthy kids to play with sick kids for the same reason. Society continues to get stupider.
The fact that masses of people, led by Trump, uncritically bought the narrative imposed on them by big pharma, and big government, is incredibly disturbing. The fact that so many still uncritically believe the narrative seems worse.
I think the bigger problem is that the minority of people who disagreed or proposed alternates were vilified, threatened, cancelled, prosecuted/jailed, or ridiculed tells us a lot about the power of pushing a narrative is. Our society used to protect and value dissent, now it ruthlessly crushes those who don't join the herd.
Just so there's no confusion, those who were "led by Trump" to uncritically buy the narrative, were in actuality led by those Trump mistakenly tapped for expertise. The fear that was "mongered" by said "experts" drove it all and I would wager that most of those who regard Trump as a good leader are still of a belief that the drugs are worth a damn.
But yeah, the bigger issue is how dissenters were treated, especially dissenters who were as educated as those pushing the narrative. It's shameful and I'd love to see those who treated them badly jailed for their dishonesty and despotism. But we'll need more conservatives in the majority in order to hope that will ever happen. That behavior must be punished because it's behavior intentionally exhibited by those who are tasked with the general welfare in mind. They've clearly abused their authority and many died because of it.
Well, as the sign on Truman's desk said, "The buck stops here.". POTUS bears responsibility for the actions of those he hires or employs. Of course, Trump never claimed that he was only going to hire the best and most qualified people to work for him. So the argument now is that Trump goofed, didn't hire the best people, and then didn't tell these "mistakes" that they were fired. Obviously trump has no responsibility for anything that his administration did while he was POTUS.
But, beyond the unnecessary defense of Trump's failure, you are right. The point is how those who dissented were treated, and the dishonesty that was used against those dissenters.
First, I noticed an error in my last comment. It should have read "I would wager that most of those who regard Trump as a good leader are NO LONGER still of a belief that the drugs are worth a damn." This was a bad error on my part, as I don't know too many...IF any...conservatives of any kind, Trump supporter or not, who regard the drugs as efficacious.
I don't disagree with the notion that Trump should have...and considerably early on...conceded the drugs were worthless. And he could have done so while still boasting of his being behind their quick release to the public while they were still considered a viable option. That was no small thing at the time, and he deserves credit for it apart from what the passing of time has proven to be true. He unfortunately still lauds the drugs as incredible life savers, and I'm not sure there's reliable data they did much good for anyone, particularly the elderly who were the heart of the greatest concern early on. I'd love to see such data with regard to them.
Now to address your lame sarcasm, Trump did indeed remove several people who weren't up to snuff and a few who simply outlived their usefulness (no need to keep them on in such a case). That he didn't get rid of more losers than he did is indeed regrettable, though not nearly enough to consider him unworthy of another term all by itself. It's just a mark on the "con" side of the ledger, which is where objective people like myself have entered it.
But beyond the unnecessary attack on Trump's negatives, which continue to get more attention than the negatives of any other GOP president, politician or candidate, we at least agree about the treatment of those dissenters, and that's a good thing.
"Trump supporter or not, who regard the drugs as efficacious."
Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
It's amusing how you treat Trump's continued touting of this ineffective and potentially dangerous "vaccine" as merely unfortunate. Seems a bit detached from reality if you ask me.
Speaking of reality. One of Trumps biggest campaign promises was that he would bring in the best people for the various roles in his administration, and that he'd get rid of those who weren't. The fact that you acknowledge that he failed to do this, while acting as if his removal of a few people somehow mitigates the reality is kind of sweet.
"It's amusing how you treat Trump's continued touting of this ineffective and potentially dangerous "vaccine" as merely unfortunate."
It's no more than unfortunate even if "a bit detached". It's clear you're more a Trump hater than I've ever been a Trump lover. You even find it necessary to disparage my concessions. Am I not a outraged as you feel I must be by this guy, as Dan demands of us who don't join in with his condemnations of whatever chafes his ass? Of course, one must reject the truth of "best people" being a subjective term in order to run that crap. But you do you. I'll remain objective.
To put it another way, this is another example of attacking a guy for being imperfect while insisting perfection is not being demanded of him. Or worse, you're intent on finding enough negatives to tip the scales enough to rationalize withholding any support. Why not add his haircut and constant wearing of red neckties to help? Because it appears quite clear that his biggest and worst failure was not being perfect, and it's getting so being perfect wouldn't be enough.
It's still looking like he'll be the guy. If he is, there will be no justification for not supporting him against any of the many morons likely to be the eventual Dem nominee. With the constant Dem cheating, every vote will matter.
It's strange that in one thread you chastise me because you think I'm demanding that you agree with me, while at the same time attacking me because I do not agree with you. Labeling me a "Trump hater" because I don't agree with your opinions about Trump's wonderfulness, seems both counterproductive, and false. Your inability to distinguish between criticizing Trump for his failures, and pointing out your excuses for them, is not an indication of "Trump hate". The fact that I believe that there are better options than Trump, doesn't indicate "Trump hate". The fact that all you have is throwing out the "Trump hate" bullshit doesn't help your cause in the least.
I'm sorry if pointing out Trump's failing to hire "the best people", and conversely to not fire those who were bad, causes problems for you and your narrative.
Not at all. I've never demanded that Trump be perfect, nor attacked him for failing to be perfect. I have pointed out areas where he did well as president, and areas where he failed. Again, I'm sorry if my opinions and pointing out of the realities of the Trump president offends you. Look, he ran on his ability to hire "the best" people as a strength. He (sort of) acknowledged that he knew that he needed "the best" people to balance out areas where he lacked knowledge or experience. It was a major campaign promise. Which we must contrast with what he actually did, which was to not hire "the best" people for certain positions. It's history, and only fools argue with history.
Given the fact that there hasn't been one single primary yet, that Trump has avoided every single debate, and we haven't seen one single verdict in any of the many places he's on trial, your hope seems untehthered from reality.
Hell, even that recent NYT poll showing Trump ahead in swing states seems to be more of a referendum on Biden's failures than on Trump's successes. But, that's why they play the games. We'll see what happens.
I do appreciate your Dan like assumption about how I might vote in a theoretical election that is a year away, your mind reading abilities are almost as strong as Dan's.
Post a Comment