2016 Election TIme - Mothering Forums

 152Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 74 Old 11-02-2016, 10:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
2016 Election TIme

Vaccine Policy Contingent:

Mandates:
Stein; Don't Know
Johnson; Pro
Clinton; Don't Know
Trump; Don't Know

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

and thx
applejuice likes this.
Anne Jividen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 06:23 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 21,881
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
AFAIK,
Dr Stein - says more studies should be done.
Johnson - got schooled in herd immunity and is in favor of mandates.
Clinton - "The sky is blue, the grass is green, vaccines work, #grandmotherknowsbest ".
Trump - Agrees with the "Too many too soon" school of vaccine query.
Deborah and Anne Jividen like this.

"Vaccines are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get - acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, allergies, diabetes, eczema, petit/gran mal seizures, ADEM, AFP, ASIA, CFS, GBS, JPA, JRA, LGS, LKS, MS, POF, POTS, RA, SJS, SLE, SPD, TPI, Henoch-Schonlein purpua, fibromyalgia, Retts Syndrome, encephalitis, Hughes Syndrome, neurological damage, coma, or death."

~paraphrased from "Forrest Gump"~
applejuice is offline  
#3 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 06:47 AM
 
Nazsmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the vine
Posts: 5,846
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
Nazsmum is offline  
 
#4 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 09:08 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
I think @applejuice has it about right.

I just want to point out that this issue is barely a blimp on my radar as far as the election goes. Vaccine mandates are a state level issue and the President does not have the power to change or alter vaccine schedules or official recommendations. The president appoints the CDC Director, but that is a political position. He could appoint his favorite mechanic if he wanted to. There is no senate approval required. The ACIP are the ones who evaluate the evidence and make recommendations. After they make those recommendations, they are then sent to the CDC Director who can either approve them or reject them, but at worst, they would just go back to what they were originally if he rejects a change of recommendation. The CDC Director is not involved in the process of evaluating the evidence and making the recommendations at all. Now, the members of the ACIP are appointed by the Secretary of Health which the President also appoints, but the senate *would* have to confirm that nomination so it would have to be someone qualified.

Here are some sources: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/about.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/con...lor-office.pdf

So while there may be many many many MANY reasons I do not want a President Trump, worrying about his ability to change vaccine recommendations or schedules is not one of them.
Turquesa and SchoolmarmDE like this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 11-03-2016 at 09:13 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 11:53 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
I'm a rabid Stein supporter, but her views on vaccines don't have any weight on it for the reasons that Tea described. I do pay attention to this issue in state and local elections.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#6 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 12:44 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 21,881
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Yes, on a federal level, health issues should not matter.

The Tenth Amendment leaves the police powers to the states.

Since the FDA was formed by Teddy Roosevelt and the Department of HEW was formed by Eisenhower in 1954, health and education, formerly the sole concern of the individual states have slowly been moving to a centralized federal government concern. There were good reasons for the FDA to be established at the time. (the clean food and drug act)

However because cases as the Bruesewitz and Clueor cases go to the SCOTUS and the Justices are nominated by the POTUS and approved by the Senate, vaccine court is federal, the Federal Surgeon General is appointed by the POTUS, the Secretary of HHS is appointed by the POTUS, and some positions in the CDC and FDA are controlled by the POTUS and other agencies are controlled by the federal executive branch, the person who is the POTUS does have some legal weight in making health decisions for YOU. HEW became HHS and DOE under Carter. Reagan signed the National Vaccine Injury Act written and passed by Congress, written by Congressman Henry Waxman-D. With the passing of the ACA in 2009, health concerns are more and more being controlled by Washington, DC.

So, yes, it does matter who is in the WH as far as health decisions despite what the Constitution says.
95191, sidrajedi and Anne Jividen like this.

"Vaccines are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get - acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, allergies, diabetes, eczema, petit/gran mal seizures, ADEM, AFP, ASIA, CFS, GBS, JPA, JRA, LGS, LKS, MS, POF, POTS, RA, SJS, SLE, SPD, TPI, Henoch-Schonlein purpua, fibromyalgia, Retts Syndrome, encephalitis, Hughes Syndrome, neurological damage, coma, or death."

~paraphrased from "Forrest Gump"~

Last edited by applejuice; 11-03-2016 at 05:13 PM.
applejuice is offline  
#7 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 01:55 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
I don't know. I am not American, so it is hard to know how much sway the president does or could have wrt vaccines. I won't discuss it at all, as I am not in the know.

That being said, I would have difficulty supporting a candidate who did not support informed choice in medical issues, parental rights, and non-discriminatory actions wrt school exemptions even if they had no power. I cannot stomach someone so authoritarian.

Subbing.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#8 of 74 Old 11-03-2016, 05:18 PM
 
Nazsmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the vine
Posts: 5,846
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Yes, on a federal level, health issues should not matter.


So, yes, it does matter who is in the WH as far as health decisions despite what the Constitution says.
Unfortunately this is true.

As I see it Trump would give more freedom in heath care decisions. I do know he is for more freedom with Education...
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
Nazsmum is offline  
#9 of 74 Old 11-04-2016, 07:53 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
The Surgeon General doesn't have any say or power in determining vaccine schedules or mandates, either.

Supreme Court Justices also have to go through a tough vetting process and get approved by the Senate. With issues like gun control, gay rights, and abortion on the line, I can guarantee that their position on school vaccine mandates is not going to even likely be something they ask them about or consider in the slightest. Even if it were, and even if you assume this was taken into consideration for every SCJ the POTUS nominates (again, almost certainly not going to happen), the next president is likely going to appoint 3 maybe 4 SCJs and you would need 5 for a majority.

So again, the president has very little/no input in the officially recommended vaccine schedule or school mandates which are a state's rights issue.

Now, voting locally can have an impact on vaccine mandates for your individual state, however.
Anne Jividen likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#10 of 74 Old 11-04-2016, 08:27 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

So again, the president has very little/no input in the officially recommended vaccine schedule or school mandates which are a state's rights issue.
Could you vote for someone who held views that were diametrically opposed to yours on a topic you were passionate about, even if they could not do anything about their beliefs?

Ex: you firmly believe in strict gun control. Your firmly believe it is the most ethical and most most life preserving position in the USA. Could you vote for a person who firmly believes in right to gun ownership, even if they were not in a position to change gun laws?

or

You firmly believe climate change exists and is a huge threat to the people and the planet. A political candidate (one without power to change environmental laws) does not believe climate change exists. You believe his or her views stem from strong corporate ties and science denialism. Could you vote for this person?

I get there are a couple of issues at play here. If you hate Hilary or Trump - but love their view on vaccines (or vice versa) - how much could or should this one issue play into voting? I think the weight people give the issue is very obviously going to differ from person to person.

I also think the President of the USA could influence vaccine laws ( and exemptions are what everyone is concerned with) if they were passionate about it. I understand it is not their jurisdiction - but I also believe the President is in a very powerful position. I would not discount their influence. I don't expect that vaccine issues are high on the Presidents list of priorities - but it is less than ideal to simply cross one's fingers and hope they never get to an issue.

Good luck to everyone who is deciding. There is so much to weigh.

Kathy
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#11 of 74 Old 11-04-2016, 08:53 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Could you vote for someone who held views that were diametrically opposed to yours on a topic you were passionate about, even if they could not do anything about their beliefs?
I'm not supposed to talk politics, so I won't get into too many specifics. But my answer is: it would depend on what issue we were talking about.

There are issues where I have extremely passionate views, but I feel that reasonable people of good faith can disagree. Most hot-button issues on which the two major parties in the U.S. disagree (abortion, gun control) probably fall into this category. As to those issues, I could vote for someone who held a view I vehemently disagreed with, provided that that person would not be in a position to do anything about that issue if elected. (Presumably there are other reasons why I do want to vote for this person.)

There are other issues where I feel like holding a certain view just indicates that something is fundamentally wrong with your ability to be a reasonable and decent person. I would not, for example, vote for a white supremacist for any office, even if that office would not permit the person to do anything about his or her white supremacist views.
kathymuggle likes this.
Jessica765 is offline  
#12 of 74 Old 11-04-2016, 11:07 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 21,881
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
To be honest, the Constitution and federal laws do not really matter. The media in our culture pushes agendas - the "Fifth Column". If the First Lady has an agenda to push deliberately or not, that will get front and center attention in the rag magazines, newspapers, and television. I recall how the news focused on Betty Ford and Happy Rockefeller's mastectomies; women made appointments all over the country and the age protocols for first mammograms were lowered and pushed. Later, Betty Ford was significant in drug rehabilitation programs in methods that worked for her situation. Twenty years before Betty Ford's surgery, Mamie Eisenhower had a hysterectomy, and the media tread gently around that fact, using delicate language.

Edith Bolt Wilson is referred to in some circles as the "First Woman President" because of the lead she took after Woodrow's stroke. Lou Hoover had an advanced degree, had a radio show, and encouraged the Girl Scouts. Eleanor Roosevelt was an outgoing FLOTUS. Nancy Reagan went on sitcoms with her, "Just Say 'NO'!, campaign. More quietly, both First Lady Bushes talked about literacy. Lady Bird planted wildflowers. Jackie redecorated the WH. Hillary pushed her healthcare agenda. Michele had a eating better and gardening plan that extended to the federal lunch program. There are no laws for the First Lady to do anything but tradition holds that she be the WH Hostess. In recent administrations, the FLOTUS has had a bigger role.

I read that many people do not care for VP nominee Pence because he does not believe in Evolution. If he were elected what could he do? Why would this be an issue? Yes, he would be a "heartbeat away", but really, what would he be able to do about anyone teaching or researching Evolution?

Legally nothing, statutorily little, but having an agenda, maybe. The EO has been used since George Washington.

The media has an agenda.

Remember in a national emergency, the executive branch has plenty of powers. See what FDR did with EO 9066 in 1942 with the confiscation of property and the denial of civil rights without due process.

Let me muddy the waters more for all of you. Bernie Sanders is a write-in candidate in some states, so one can still consider feeling the Burn in the voting booth one more time. VP Libertarian candidate William Weld, Harvard Law and Oxford graduate, is an old friend of Hillary's - they worked on the impeachment committee together 40+ yrs ago and as Governor of Massachusetts was married to the granddaughter of TR and had five children.

"Vaccines are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get - acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, allergies, diabetes, eczema, petit/gran mal seizures, ADEM, AFP, ASIA, CFS, GBS, JPA, JRA, LGS, LKS, MS, POF, POTS, RA, SJS, SLE, SPD, TPI, Henoch-Schonlein purpua, fibromyalgia, Retts Syndrome, encephalitis, Hughes Syndrome, neurological damage, coma, or death."

~paraphrased from "Forrest Gump"~

Last edited by applejuice; 11-05-2016 at 04:42 PM.
applejuice is offline  
#13 of 74 Old 11-04-2016, 01:57 PM
 
SchoolmarmDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Could you vote for someone who held views that were diametrically opposed to yours on a topic you were passionate about, even if they could not do anything about their beliefs?

Ex: you firmly believe in strict gun control. Your firmly believe it is the most ethical and most most life preserving position in the USA. Could you vote for a person who firmly believes in right to gun ownership, even if they were not in a position to change gun laws?

or

You firmly believe climate change exists and is a huge threat to the people and the planet. A political candidate (one without power to change environmental laws) does not believe climate change exists. You believe his or her views stem from strong corporate ties and science denialism. Could you vote for this person?

I get there are a couple of issues at play here. If you hate Hilary or Trump - but love their view on vaccines (or vice versa) - how much could or should this one issue play into voting? I think the weight people give the issue is very obviously going to differ from person to person.

I also think the President of the USA could influence vaccine laws ( and exemptions are what everyone is concerned with) if they were passionate about it. I understand it is not their jurisdiction - but I also believe the President is in a very powerful position. I would not discount their influence. I don't expect that vaccine issues are high on the Presidents list of priorities - but it is less than ideal to simply cross one's fingers and hope they never get to an issue.

Good luck to everyone who is deciding. There is so much to weigh.

Kathy
Easy, I do all the time.

I'm a very passionate and political person, but my only chance of being agreed with by everyone in a room is to be the only one in the room. I have views that don't align fully with anyone's platform.

So I vote based on my judgement of whether a candidate will follow their conscience, a, and be open to new information, b.

I expect people to be wrong. The question is, will they be wrong for the "right reasons" and do they have the ability to change their minds. There are few enough people who meet that criteria, without asking for more.
applejuice, Deborah, 95191 and 1 others like this.
SchoolmarmDE is offline  
#14 of 74 Old 11-06-2016, 07:50 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I'm not supposed to talk politics, so I won't get into too many specifics. But my answer is: it would depend on what issue we were talking about.

There are issues where I have extremely passionate views, but I feel that reasonable people of good faith can disagree. Most hot-button issues on which the two major parties in the U.S. disagree (abortion, gun control) probably fall into this category. As to those issues, I could vote for someone who held a view I vehemently disagreed with, provided that that person would not be in a position to do anything about that issue if elected. (Presumably there are other reasons why I do want to vote for this person.)

There are other issues where I feel like holding a certain view just indicates that something is fundamentally wrong with your ability to be a reasonable and decent person. I would not, for example, vote for a white supremacist for any office, even if that office would not permit the person to do anything about his or her white supremacist views.
I largely agree with this.

My issue is whether or not someone who wants to exclude children from school because their parents decided to forgo prophylactic measure for what are typically very rare or fairly benign diseases is a reasonable and decent person. I really don't know. I think those who favour firm exemptions could be decent people, but if they are, then are likely caught up in fear and/or mob mentality... I would have trouble voting for someone caught up in mob mentality. I want a leader who can rise above such things.

Wrt the Op's list - we do not really know who favours school vaccine mandates. We know Carson favours medical exemptions only, we can infer that Stein and Trump do not favour only medical exemptions, and Clinton seems up in the air, but her I am inclined to believe she may favour medical exemptions only.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#15 of 74 Old 11-06-2016, 10:45 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
As pointed out by @applejuice so well, on the Federal level there is some that a president can do. Surgeon General also can have an effect as well as simple influences Federally elected have on promoting their own POV on vaccines. Many Federally elected are vocal on vaccination not just the President.

But as a whole the state governor has a far larger role with vaccines and this year several are up. Not to mention state reps that often vote in and supersede legislation at the immediate level. Each state runs differently.

Frankly I'm quite pleased the role my state head of the Health Dept has, appointed by the governor.

So down ballot races have a much larger impact for the immediate.

For the record, I'm a single issue voter for President, and vaccines never factor in.

Last edited by 95191; 11-06-2016 at 10:48 PM.
95191 is offline  
#16 of 74 Old 11-08-2016, 03:07 PM
 
Tweety_Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,015
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
So, when can we expect to hear the final result?

Anne Jividen likes this.
Tweety_Bird is offline  
#17 of 74 Old 11-08-2016, 04:39 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Did anyone happen to read or hear the info about the psychology of elections? So many people afraid to go to the polls? Fear be darned, vote your heart everyone and know that:

Every little thing's gonna be aright...:

applejuice and kathymuggle like this.
Anne Jividen is offline  
#18 of 74 Old 11-08-2016, 04:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweety_Bird View Post
So, when can we expect to hear the final result?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dcmLscf3g
i love you in ways i can not express!!! you just keep me laughing and smiling every day! thank YOu thank You thank You SO MUCH!!!!!

ps: you never saw this.....
Anne Jividen is offline  
#19 of 74 Old 11-08-2016, 06:07 PM
 
Tweety_Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,015
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Tweety_Bird is offline  
#20 of 74 Old 11-08-2016, 07:20 PM
 
Tweety_Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,015
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
I found this, where you can see everything at a glance:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e=presidential
applejuice likes this.
Tweety_Bird is offline  
#21 of 74 Old 11-08-2016, 08:57 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 21,881
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post
Did anyone happen to read or hear the info about the psychology of elections? So many people afraid to go to the polls? Fear be darned, vote your heart everyone and know that:
Vote by mail. No poll needed.

"Vaccines are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get - acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, allergies, diabetes, eczema, petit/gran mal seizures, ADEM, AFP, ASIA, CFS, GBS, JPA, JRA, LGS, LKS, MS, POF, POTS, RA, SJS, SLE, SPD, TPI, Henoch-Schonlein purpua, fibromyalgia, Retts Syndrome, encephalitis, Hughes Syndrome, neurological damage, coma, or death."

~paraphrased from "Forrest Gump"~
applejuice is offline  
#22 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 07:49 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
Deep breaths, everyone

Easy to say from my side of the border, I know.

I was talking with my mother several months ago on how people were threatening to revolt/move to Canada etc if Trump got in...and she said they did the same thing when Reagan got in. Everyone thought the sky was falling - but it didn't - and it likely won't now. The American people can rise above and are not (thankfully) defined by their president. Hey, if he gets too out of line, you can always impeach him

As an aside, I would love to discuss if Trump got in because he was seen as anti-establishment (Hilary is very much seen as pro- corporations, lifetime politician, media in her pocket). I am not sure if we can here (maybe MDC is so quiet they will let us have a thoughtful and respectful political conversation?).

I am glad he is pro vaccine choice. I quite agree with him on vaccines, and believe his stance is quite cautious (which is ironic because he is not known for caution). I don't know how much influence he will have at a state level, or how much he will choose to exert (he might have other fish to fry). If he is against Obamacare, will that affect vaccine availability for families in needs?
applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#23 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 08:56 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Listening to William Control
Posts: 31,346
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Gary Johnson disqualified himself as a so called libertarian when he came out supporting vaccine mandates. Not that it matters today.
applejuice and Deborah like this.
Arduinna is offline  
#24 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 09:07 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Listening to William Control
Posts: 31,346
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Deep breaths, everyone

Easy to say from my side of the border, I know.

I was talking with my mother several months ago on how people were threatening to revolt/move to Canada etc if Trump got in...and she said they did the same thing when Reagan got in. Everyone thought the sky was falling - but it didn't - and it likely won't now. The American people can rise above and are not (thankfully) defined by their president. Hey, if he gets too out of line, you can always impeach him

As an aside, I would love to discuss if Trump got in because he was seen as anti-establishment (Hilary is very much seen as pro- corporations, lifetime politician, media in her pocket). I am not sure if we can here (maybe MDC is so quiet they will let us have a thoughtful and respectful political conversation?).

I am glad he is pro vaccine choice. I quite agree with him on vaccines, and believe his stance is quite cautious (which is ironic because he is not known for caution). I don't know how much influence he will have at a state level, or how much he will choose to exert (he might have other fish to fry). If he is against Obamacare, will that affect vaccine availability for families in needs?

I think it's obvious that Trump won because he was seen as the anti establishment candidate. He's never held office and appealed to the populous.

Many many people are fed up with politics as usual. The wikileaks emails regarding issues with the Clinton Foundation, the appearance of pay for play during her time as SOS plus the private email server ect ect ect were just too much to overcome. Even with all that, the media and pollsters basically told us that she would win. They acted like she was owed the election after 2008.

It also didn't help that the way the pledged delegate system works in the Dem party during the primaries and the emails that came out confirmed that Dem party leaders played favorites with Clinton over Sanders during the primary pissed off many Sanders supporters and independents. You couldn't get more establishment insider the Clintons.
Arduinna is offline  
#25 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 09:46 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Those who support vaccine might be in for a few surprises with this next president and not ones they might like!

Lots of senators and house reps that favor choice got in too, not just in the Federal level.
Arduinna, applejuice and Deborah like this.
95191 is offline  
#26 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 09:47 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 21,881
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Gary Johnson disqualified himself as a so called libertarian when he came out supporting vaccine mandates. Not that it matters today.
I completely agree with everything you have said, Arduinna. Thank you for articulating it so well.

The true classic libertarian would want to get rid of the FDA and other federal agencies.

Someone talked to him about the herd immunity thing.
Arduinna and Deborah like this.

"Vaccines are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get - acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, allergies, diabetes, eczema, petit/gran mal seizures, ADEM, AFP, ASIA, CFS, GBS, JPA, JRA, LGS, LKS, MS, POF, POTS, RA, SJS, SLE, SPD, TPI, Henoch-Schonlein purpua, fibromyalgia, Retts Syndrome, encephalitis, Hughes Syndrome, neurological damage, coma, or death."

~paraphrased from "Forrest Gump"~
applejuice is offline  
#27 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 10:39 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
As I said, vaccine positions play virtually no role in who I vote for president. They don't have power over vaccine mandates, that is decided at the local and state level.

Especially since it is widely expected that Trump will appoint Ben Carson for Secretary of HHS (who then appoints ACIP members) and who is in favor of vaccines and against vaccine exemptions. He has stated more than once that vaccines do not cause autism. Again, Carson wouldn't have power over vaccine mandates but I think if people are expecting this to be any kind of real focus of Trumps people are going to be very disappointed. Carson did say he thought that there "might" should be discretion for certain vaccines regarding mandates, but he clearly supports them overall. There is not any indication that he would appoint anyone who was against vaccines. Additionally, this would only be a temporary appointment. The next president in either 4 or 8 years would be free to appoint whoever they saw fit who could, in turn, reverse or change any "damage" done by Trump. I am not worried in the least that Carson is going to appoint a bunch of anti-vaccine "experts" as ACIP members. He is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccines and, in my opinion, cares too much about his reputation as a respected doctor and pediatric surgeon to do so. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

Ben Carson:

“Although I strongly believe in individual rights and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, I also recognize that public health and public safety are extremely important in our society,” Carson told The Hill. “Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them.”

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 11-09-2016 at 10:41 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#28 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 10:52 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
And FYI @kathymuggle , a Trump presidency doesn't just impact the US. This is not expected to be good for Canada, either. http://globalnews.ca/news/3049833/do...-analyst-says/

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#29 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 10:52 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
You must be very sad, @teacozy . As an active member here, you of course oppose vaccine mandates!
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#30 of 74 Old 11-09-2016, 10:56 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
You must be very sad, @teacozy . As an active member here, you of course oppose vaccine mandates!
As I said, their position on vaccine mandates is irrelevant to me one way or another. I am pointing out that people who think this is going to be a huge focus of Trumps with everything else going on or that he is going to drastically change our vaccine schedule/mandates are going to be very disappointed I think.

As I already said above, Carson, if appointed, wouldn't have a say or power in regards to school mandates, either.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 14,031

26 members and 14,005 guests
agentofchaos , avocet , Boodah'smama , Bufomander , Deborah , Dovenoir , esg , girlspn , HeidiW1979 , jamesmorrow , Midwestmom2009 , moominmamma , Motherof3already , MountainMamaGC , Peter Gold , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , Sonja416 , sren , transpecos , vilongacarla , Xerxella
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.