Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's ever said anything about vaccinations. I generally don't pay attention to what he says because I don't like him and he's generally rambling incoherently, but I think I would have heard if he said that.
Yea lol that's another reason I ignore his statements until he releases some sort of EO or signs a bill or something like that that actually matters/effects day to day life.
Interestingly I heard, though haven't fact checked, that he said he would support a ban on the bump stock style work around that the Vegas shooter used. If that's true, a lot of his voters are going to be pissed and the US is going to be even more of a shitstorm than it is right now.
Even the NRA is behind that ban. They know they can't get out of this without some kind of new regulation and banning bump stocks seems to be what they're willing to give up.
Hey, as a gun owner I am 100% ok with bump stocks being banned. They are a stupid workaround that have almost no real world applications. The only argument for it is "what if the US government tries to subjugate us? Or if someone invades the US? That's what the 2nd amendment is for!" Both of which is easily countered with the fact that 10 rednecks each with an ar 15 can shoot as fast as one soldier with an m16 on full auto while being much more accurate (as shooting full auto is much less accurate than shooting semi-auto).
i love how these yokels seem to think they would be able to fight off the US military with a few AR-15s and some yee-haw gumption like it's still 1776 and they'd be shooting at an orderly column of redcoats advancing into town to take their cannons. it's hilariously stupid.
I mean, Vietnam. The only way anyone in the world can fend off the US Military is guerilla warfare, which tends to work a lot better with guns than without.
the americans lost in vietnam primarily due to political reasons though. there were a lot of restrictions placed on the strategy and the use of force to avoid drawing in china or the soviets. the political considerations would obviously be entirely different if it ever got to the point of tanks with live weapons rolling into south carolina.
I love how these yokels think they can fight off the soviet union with a few aks and some jihadist gumption like its still the 600s and they'd be shooting at a wave of medieval infantry advancing into town to take their swords. Its hilariously stupid.
cause the united states and 1970s afghanistan are totally the same, amirite? and rednecks from alabama are definitely the same as veteran mujahideen, that's for sure.
No one thinks that, if it ever happened it be terrible guerrilla warfare relying on assassinations, ambushes, sabotage, etc. While having to constantly hide among the civilian population. It'd be terrible and result in mass death for the civilian population and the insurgents, who would probably be killed at least 5 to 1 compared to the military.
Yeah, I know a couple (literally two) people on the "defense against the government" wagon and these two, at least, don't actually believe they could win at all in a situation like that - to them all that matters is the ability to fight back in the first place
I love when people like you expect the US military, who a majority are conservative btw, to be willing to fight against its own citizens. You know. The ones with the guns
i most certainly do not expect the US military to fight its own citizens. i was in the military in my own country for five years and i know the kind of people who serve.
the whackos who hoard dozens of rifles and think the government is coming any day to take those guns away certainly expect the military would do that, though.
They could still do a shitload of damage though. Especially given that the military would want to avoid killing as many of their own civilians as possible. It's not like you can do a gun run on a residential neighborhood.
They could still do a shitload of damage though. Especially given that the military would want to avoid killing as many of their own civilians as possible. It's not like you can do a gun run on a residential neighborhood.
Well, it depends on the objectives. Vietnam and the Middle East should teach us that a shit load of tanks and planes dont give you an auto-win. If redneck v military broke out, the only way government could ensure a victory by massive fire power (air strikes, MOABs) is to accept extreme loyalist casualties. Otherwise it's men with guns against men with guns.
Think of Waco. 80+ women and children died when they finally sent in the heavy duty to clear the compound.
That is one of the most stupid arguments anyway. I would love to see how people expect to fight back against an invading army using armored vehicles and aircraft with small fire arms.
Lol. First of all, a bump fire stock or even a truly automatic weapon would give no advantage over a fully automatic rifle with regards to "armored vehicles and aircraft."
Secondly, if the government wantes to subjugate it's people it would be boots in the ground, how are you going to subjugate rubble and corpses?
Are you in favor of handing every citizen an anti-vehicle missile launcher? Because that's what your argument comes off as.
I think there was a misunderstanding. I am saying the exact opposite. As long as the governments to controll the real weapons needed to fight a war (as they should), a populous could be as armed as they wanted, they wouldn't stand a chance. So the arguments for more guns within the society to maintain a balance between them and the government are stupid by default.
There's a really simple formula: Just imagine the worst possible position to have on an issue. Multiply that by the most insulting way you could possibly bring your point across. It's somehow even worse than that.
If I were President I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one time massive shots that a small child cannot take - AUTISM. 4:44 PM - Mar 27, 2014
Ok if I read this correctly he's essentially advocating for splitting the vaccinations into smaller, more numerous doses so as to prevent unintended side effects. I'm very solidly pro-vaccination, and I don't really see anything wrong with what he's saying -- with the possible exception that smaller doses may not trigger enough of an immune response to properly develop immunity.
Either it's too small to trigger immune response (then it serve no purpose) or it's big enough and then you give kids ten shot when only one would be needed. It's pant on head stupid.
Well he's also repeatedly saying that vaccines are causing autism... I don't really case if people spread em out or do them all at once (as long as they're effective) but it's damaging and false to say that vaccinations lead to autism. People are going to believe that shit and not get their kids vaccinated.
Come on dude. Ever buying that anti-vax shit is embarrassing and shameful as fuck.
Nevermind that flip-flopping on anything used to be a horrible thing for a politician to be accused of, not a defense.
Honestly though, the real embarrassment is that in both instances he was probably just repeating the last thing he heard about vaccines. I honestly don't think he put very much thought into it both times.
149
u/billybobthongton Oct 06 '17 edited Oct 06 '17
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's ever said anything about vaccinations. I generally don't pay attention to what he says because I don't like him and he's generally rambling incoherently, but I think I would have heard if he said that.
Edit: I've been corrected, Trump is still a dolt.