• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jill Stein on vaccines: People have ‘real questions’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
You're mistaken, thimoersal is no longer used in child vaccines in the US at the request of the CDC and the AAP. 1. This did not effect what other nations did with their vaccines, but I should also note that the US was not the first country to remove thimoersal from its vaccines intended for children.2. It is also important to note that this was not a decision made at the demand of public pressure, but out of concern from doctors within the CDC and the AAP
That is not true, both the CDC and the AAP stated repeatdly that there is no scientific evidence that Thimerosal is unsafe.
As hammysaurusrex correctly pointed out, they recommended its removal because they hoped it will raise the public confidence in vaccines.
That didn't work by the way, since many anti vaxxers saw it as proof that they were right all along.
 

Kin5290

Member
I agree with her there. I'm sure Clinton supporters are using the beautiful thing called cognitive dissonance to deny Liberal contribution to the rise of the extreme right. Then again I think the GOP contributed even more obviously.
Yeah, how dare oppressed racial, ethnic, and sexually oriented minorities strive for such things as "equal rights"?! Those liberal bastards!
 

JackDT

Member
If Jill Stein more often acknowledged her many overlaps with Clinton I would in fact be more likely to vote for her (since I live in a non swing state that will 100% be Clinton anyway). The way she's pitching it now I find disingenuous.
 

RMI

Banned
https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/status/758734246072586240

Probably posted, but just a reminder of how Stein really feels about the election.

This is like the kind of political analysis that someone who is drunk and or high gives, except that they have an excuse for their craziness. This woman is insane.

I agree with her there. I'm sure Clinton supporters are using the beautiful thing called cognitive dissonance to deny Liberal contribution to the rise of the extreme right. Then again I think the GOP contributed even more obviously.

uhhhh....
 

Condom

Member
Yeah, how dare oppressed racial, ethnic, and sexually oriented minorities strive for such things as "equal rights"?! Those liberal bastards!
Good thing to prove my point, liberals have been focusing on social justice while neglecting economic justice. I think they are connected and that the one does not truly exist without the other.
 

Piecake

Member
Good thing to prove my point, liberals have been focusing on social justice while neglecting economic justice. I think they are connected and that the one does not truly exist without the other.

I think anyone who thinks that Neo-liberalism caused Nazism is bat-shit insane.
 
I agree with her there. I'm sure Clinton supporters are using the beautiful thing called cognitive dissonance to deny Liberal contribution to the rise of the extreme right. Then again I think the GOP contributed even more obviously.

No shit? The KKK exists because of the Emancipation Proclamation.
 

KRod-57

Banned
None of this provides evidence for your incorrect statement. My point still stands - the removal of thiomersal did not in any way make vaccines safer. You remain wrong.

but your claim that the removal thimerosal made vaccines unsafe for developing countries, or that the decision to remove thimerosal from child vaccines was due to acknowledging public questions holds no basis. In fact thimerosal is still used for child vaccines in developing countries. Though you do raise a point that I must address, thimerosal was removed from child vaccines in the US (and many European countries) due to concerns from doctors, however these concerns do not constitute as definitive proof that the removal of thimerosal has made vaccinations safer

The greater point is, saying "people have real questions" is an acknowledgment of the inevitable, it is not anti-science or anti-vaccination to acknowledge the concerns of the public at large, it is in fact required by law that drug manufacturers provide full disclosure to the public regarding negative side effects for each drug. That is how it should be, information should be completely open, and doctors do have an obligation to acknowledge concerns that the public might have.
 

Condom

Member
I think anyone who thinks that Neo-liberalism caused Nazism is bat-shit insane.
You would be correct because Nazism existed before neo liberalism.

Neo-fascism or nationalism however is a direct reaction to neo liberal (economic and cultural) globalisation and the loss of identity. It's not just me saying that but also sociologists and philosophers.
 

KRod-57

Banned
That is not true, both the CDC and the AAP stated repeatdly that there is no scientific evidence that Thimerosal is unsafe.
As hammysaurusrex correctly pointed out, they recommended its removal because they hoped it will raise the public confidence in vaccines.
That didn't work by the way, since many anti vaxxers saw it as proof that they were right all along.

I didn't say that the CDC or the AAP did conclude that they were unsafe, I said that the CDC and the AAP requested that thimerosal be removed from child vaccines. Which is completely true, it was a probationary measure

Though again, I should correct my earlier post, the concerns of doctors regarding thimerosal are not definitive proof that the removal of thimerosal made vaccines safer (again I did not say they were unsafe, I said that vaccines were made safer). I misspoke in that post
 
I will add that, while I dislike Stein and disagree with a lot of her policy, I do have some sympathy for her that regardless of her views on vaccines because she has to walk a very difficult tight rope.

It's no secret that the Green party base struggles with certain anti-science positions. Yes, on an individual basis you can "but, but, but..." them over and over (like people are doing right now with the anti-vaccine mental gymanstics), but taken together: anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-homeopathy, anti-nuclear, etc., paint a bleak picture of their ability to properly analyze scientific evidence and make appropriate political policy in response.

Stein has to be able to placate that rabid voter base, while also producing enough plausible deniability that incoming Green party voters driven more by anti-establishment'ism and less by ideology, who very likely do not share these anti-scientific beliefs, are not immediately turned off and leave their potential new party in disgust. While I eye-roll at her obvious dog whistling on the issue, I at least understand where it's coming from and why she dodges it when it comes up. It's certainly not a political hot potato I'd ever want to juggle - so I acknowledge she has her work cut out for her.
 

Piecake

Member
You would be correct because Nazism existed before neo liberalism.

Neo-fascism or nationalism however is a direct reaction to neo liberal (economic and cultural) globalisation and the loss of identity. It's not just me saying that but also sociologists and philosophers.

Canada is genuinely different from other Western countries in terms of its attitude toward immigrants. It's far more welcoming than basically everywhere else.

"Compared to the citizens of other developed immigrant-receiving countries, Canadians are by far the most open to and optimistic about immigration," Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at UC Berkeley and its chair of Canadian studies, wrote in a 2012 study published by the Migration Policy Institute.

"In one comparative poll, only 27 percent of those surveyed in Canada agreed that immigration represented more of a problem than an opportunity. In the country that came closest to Canadian opinion, France, the perception of immigration as a problem was significantly higher, at 42 percent."

Why? According to Bloemraad, the Canadian government has spent decades attempting to foster tolerance and acceptance as core national values, through policies aimed at integrating immigrants and minority groups without stripping them of their group identity.

For example, Canada emphasized permanent resettlement and citizenship in its immigration policy, rather than the sort of guest worker policies you've often seen in the US and Europe.

This actually worked in reshaping the values of citizens, making them more tolerant. Bloemraad explains:

A key aspect of the "Canadian model" lies in the view that immigration helps with nation building. Bolstered by the federal government, this view goes beyond political and intellectual elites to be embraced by a significant proportion of ordinary Canadians.

Indeed, one recent paper found that, in Canada, those who expressed more patriotism were also more likely to support immigration and multiculturalism. In the United States this correlation went in the opposite direction: those expressing greater patriotism were more likely to express anti-immigrant attitudes.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada

Canada has largely avoided the rise of alt-right groups because Canada deliberately included immigrant groups into their national identity and made it a part of Canadian pride. They did not scapegoat 'Others' for their nation's problems or did not do anything and let a large part of the population begin to scapegoat others on their own initiative. They took a proactive approach.

Neo-liberalism isnt the problem. The problem is scapegoating and fear of change and the other.

While it is true that since the 80s the economy has left people behind many, you have also seen the rise of right-wing groups in Scandinavia as well. Are they also neo-liberal states?

If yes, then what sort of socialist state are you looking for? I hate to break it to you, but the historical record is pretty shit. It is hard to beat socialist/communist nation's in their effort and degree to scapegoat people for the nation's problems, or scapegoat people for holding the nation back towards true revolution.

I know the common refrain among socialists/communists is that these weren't 'true' socialist nations so they shouldnt count, but fuck, there has never been an ideologically and perfectly run capitalist welfare state either, so I am not quite sure why socialism/communism gets a special pass. Moreover, as the Canada example shows, you don't have to adopt policies that would take a huge dump on your economy to combat scapegoating, fear of the other and racism. Moreover, as history shows, there sure as shit no guaranty that a socialist government would be better at it.
 
I will add that, while I dislike Stein and disagree with a lot of her policy, I do have some sympathy for her that regardless of her views on vaccines because she has to walk a very difficult tight rope.

It's no secret that the Green party base struggles with certain anti-science positions. Yes, on an individual basis you can "but, but, but..." them over and over (like people are doing right now with the anti-vaccine mental gymanstics), but taken together: anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-homeopathy, anti-nuclear, etc., paint a bleak picture of their ability to properly analyze scientific evidence and make appropriate political policy in response.

Stein has to be able to placate that rabid voter base, while also producing enough plausible deniability that incoming Green party voters driven more by anti-establishment'ism and less by ideology, who very likely do not share these anti-scientific beliefs, are not immediately turned off and leave their potential new party in disgust. While I eye-roll at her obvious dog whistling on the issue, I at least understand where it's coming from and why she dodges it when it comes up. It's certainly not a political hot potato I'd ever want to juggle - so I acknowledge she has her work cut out for her.

How about she just outright deny the anti-science crowd any credibility?

And these are the same people that said "I'm voting Bernie because he doesn't play politics".
 

KRod-57

Banned
I will add that, while I dislike Stein and disagree with a lot of her policy, I do have some sympathy for her that regardless of her views on vaccines because she has to walk a very difficult tight rope.

It's no secret that the Green party base struggles with certain anti-science positions. Yes, on an individual basis you can "but, but, but..." them over and over (like people are doing right now with the anti-vaccine mental gymanstics), but taken together: anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-homeopathy, anti-nuclear, etc., paint a bleak picture of their ability to properly analyze scientific evidence and make appropriate political policy in response.

Stein has to be able to placate that rabid voter base, while also producing enough plausible deniability that incoming Green party voters driven more by anti-establishment'ism and less by ideology, who very likely do not share these anti-scientific beliefs, are not immediately turned off and leave their potential new party in disgust. While I eye-roll at her obvious dog whistling on the issue, I at least understand where it's coming from and why she dodges it when it comes up. It's certainly not a political hot potato I'd ever want to juggle - so I acknowledge she has her work cut out for her.

I can completely agree with you in regards to the Green party and the positions they have been knwon to take on GMOs and vaccinations, but there are no anti-vaccine statements made by Jill Stein herself. I think that's the problem, people want to jump to conclusions because of the party she is affiliated to. Once again http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
 

pigeon

Banned
I will add that, while I dislike Stein and disagree with a lot of her policy, I do have some sympathy for her that regardless of her views on vaccines because she has to walk a very difficult tight rope.

It's no secret that the Green party base struggles with certain anti-science positions. Yes, on an individual basis you can "but, but, but..." them over and over (like people are doing right now with the anti-vaccine mental gymanstics), but taken together: anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-homeopathy, anti-nuclear, etc., paint a bleak picture of their ability to properly analyze scientific evidence and make appropriate political policy in response.

Stein has to be able to placate that rabid voter base, while also producing enough plausible deniability that incoming Green party voters driven more by anti-establishment'ism and less by ideology, who very likely do not share these anti-scientific beliefs, are not immediately turned off and leave their potential new party in disgust. While I eye-roll at her obvious dog whistling on the issue, I at least understand where it's coming from and why she dodges it when it comes up. It's certainly not a political hot potato I'd ever want to juggle - so I acknowledge she has her work cut out for her.

Yes, how unfortunate for her that she chose to join and lead a party that accepts anti-science positions in order to attract deluded voters, and pandered to them instead of attempting to change that party.
 

Condom

Member
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada

Canada has largely avoided the rise of alt-right groups because Canada deliberately included immigrant groups into their national identity and made it a part of Canadian pride. They did not scapegoat 'Others' for their nation's problems or did not do anything and let a large part of the population begin to scapegoat others on their own initiative. They took a proactive approach.

Neo-liberalism isnt the problem. The problem is scapegoating and fear of change and the other.

While it is true that since the 80s the economy has left people behind many, you have also seen the rise of right-wing groups in Scandinavia as well. Are they also neo-liberal states?

If yes, then what sort of socialist state are you looking for? I hate to break it to you, but the historical record is pretty shit. It is hard to beat socialist/communist nation's in their effort and degree to scapegoat people for the nation's problems, or scapegoat people for holding the nation back towards true revolution.

I know the common refrain among socialists/communists is that these weren't 'true' socialist nations so they shouldnt count, but fuck, there has never been an ideologically and perfectly run capitalist welfare state either, so I am not quite sure why socialism/communism gets a special pass. Moreover, as the Canada example shows, you don't have to adopt policies that would take a huge dump on your economy to combat scapegoating, fear of the other and racism. Moreover, as history shows, there sure as shit no guaranty that a socialist government would be better at it.
It's hard to feel like globalisation and immigration is making you lose your identity when that actually is your identity. Now was it as easy as that? Now of course not and I admire the capability of the US and Canada of doing what we in Europe failed in but they had different circumstances that need to be taken in consideration.
Economically though we can see that there are problems, also in Canada which has a high level of poverty and inequality compared to other developed nations. This will break them up at some point just like how a lacking social policy is a time bomb for (traditionally) economically progressive Europe. They're moving to the left in North America so we'll see how that will develop.

Many European countries don't know how to incorporate new cultures and how to form a new unified identity. This is a problem when a centralization of capital means that immigration will happen at some point. At the same time European culture gets more and more 'Americanized' and less and less relevant which is a threat to those who seek to keep hold of their local culture and the Christian identity of the continent in general (even tho many of those advocates are actually atheist).

Economically though Europe has also been seeing problems because their form of social democracy (or what was social democracy) doesn't fix the problem of some being actively participating in the new globalized world and some being left behind. Neoliberal policies have brought some relief to government deficits but only quicken the rate of dissatisfaction.

When it comes to Scandinavia it mostly is social policies which cause that they have a hard time integrating immigrants. Their economic policies are pretty good for what you can expect of a welfare state ( we all know the impressive numbers they chew out).

So no I don't think Scandinavia is perfect not because 'it isn't perfect marxism' but because of failings in their social policies and I agree with you that they need to work on that. US and Canada have to step up their economic game though.

Fake edit: Also it's morning and I still got to sleep, excuse me if I made mistakes and I'll have to answer potential replies at a later time.
 

Piecake

Member
It's hard to feel like globalisation and immigration is making you lose your identity when that actually is your identity. Now was it as easy as that? Now of course not and I admire the capability of the US and Canada of doing what we in Europe failed in but they had different circumstances that need to be taken in consideration.
Economically though we can see that there are problems, also in Canada which has a high level of poverty and inequality compared to other developed nations. This will break them up at some point just like how a lacking social policy is a time bomb for (traditionally) economically progressive Europe. They're moving to the left in North America so we'll see how that will develop.

Many European countries don't know how to incorporate new cultures and how to form a new unified identity. This is a problem when a centralization of capital means that immigration will happen at some point. At the same time European culture gets more and more 'Americanized' and less and less relevant which is a threat to those who seek to keep hold of their local culture and the Christian identity of the continent in general (even tho many of those advocates are actually atheist).

Economically though Europe has also been seeing problems because their form of social democracy (or what was social democracy) doesn't fix the problem of some being actively participating in the new globalized world and some being left behind. Neoliberal policies have brought some relief to government deficits but only quicken the rate of dissatisfaction.

When it comes to Scandinavia it mostly is social policies which cause that they have a hard time integrating immigrants. Their economic policies are pretty good for what you can expect of a welfare state ( we all know the impressive numbers they chew out).

So no I don't think Scandinavia is perfect not because 'it isn't perfect marxism' but because of failings in their social policies and I agree with you that they need to work on that. US and Canada have to step up their economic game though.

Fake edit: Also it's morning and I still got to sleep, excuse me if I made mistakes and I'll have to answer potential replies at a later time.

I would actually agree with basically all of that.

From this it seems like you were using the actual definition of neo-liberalism, something that Jill Stein wasnt doing, and a lot of people on the hard left do not do. I was arguing against Jill Stein's broad interpretation of basically anything not socialist is neo-liberal, because I honestly don't know how you would describe the policies advocated in the democratic party platform and her speeches as neo-liberal (unless you - the general you - simply don't trust her and think she is a secret conservative). Her vision is clearly an expansion of the welfare state. I doubt much of that happens thanks to Republican obstructionism though.

While it is true that you can paint democrats under Bill Clinton as rather neo-liberal, it seems like an absurd mistake to assume that Hilary has the same ideas, her thinking hasnt changed, and/or will govern the same as her husband. That is taking away all her own thoughts and own agency and own speech, which is simply not right.

As for solutions, I think that there needs to be robust welfare programs to help pick up people when they are down and help people improve on their own if they want to take the initiative, but do so in a way that doesnt distort markets. I think it is much better policy to simply give poor people money to rent an apartment than it is to adopt a rent control policy. Just straight up giving people money has a lot less negative externalizations than rent control.

Ensuring that markets have open and transparent competition and have government take over sectors (like medicine) that simply do not work well in a capitalistic market economy is also essential.

I think we might differ on this because I am definitely pro-market - but just thought I would explain where I am coming from and why it seems I originally mistook your position. This is also the reason why Sanders and Corbyn's messages don't really resonate with me. While I like their welfare policies, they just seem anti-business and anti-market, and that to me just means a shit economy. Besides redistribution, economic growth is also an essential component of getting people out of poverty, getting the whole world out of poverty, and simply improving everyone's lives.
 
https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/status/758734246072586240

Probably posted, but just a reminder of how Stein really feels about the election.

What the fuck does that babble even mean?

The Clintons created fascism in America, i.e. Trump (which is hilarious bullshit, but I'll ignore it), so in order to stop them from doing it again we just... cut the middle man and pave a direct path for Trump? What? That's like saying "Smoking eventually leads to cancer, so instead let's literally eat some enriched uranium" (and again, that metaphor is still ignoring that the whole if(Clinton) {fascists++} is pure nonsense).

Also ignoring the whole "how the fuck does that answer his question?" thing too.
 

Media

Member
I know this thread has moved way off topic and Jill Stein is likely not anti-vaccines, but I wanted to bring a personal perspective to this general debate, in case people were on the fence.

I have a disease the requires to the total destruction of my immune system via horrible, not fun at all drugs. Drugs that are basically posion. I have to take them to survive my disease, which I have no choice in having, I lost the genetic lottery. Since my immune system with otherwise kill me, I have to take poison. I take posion to live, and people are freaking out about vaccines. :/

Advocating for people to have a choice in vaccination is a pretty much the same as saying that my death, and the deaths of the thousands like me who have similar disease, is an acceptable consequence of personal freedom. Even though we were personally vaccinated, and encourage everyone we interact with to vaccinate, because our immune systems are totally fucked, you or your child's mild case of the measles will kill us if we come in contact with it.

Please consider that when you think about policy on vaccination. It's not about personal freedom so much as saving lives. Not only hypothetical children who might die because they got some formally rare disease, or people who can't be vaccinate due to allergies but still have a chance because they actually have an immune system. People like me will most likely die from the flu, much less smallpox. Just please keep that in mind.
 

darkace

Banned
You would be correct because Nazism existed before neo liberalism.

Neo-fascism or nationalism however is a direct reaction to neo liberal (economic and cultural) globalisation and the loss of identity. It's not just me saying that but also sociologists and philosophers.

Nationalism and neo-fascism are just the latest in a long-line of reactionary movements stretching back centuries, and have as much to do with neo-liberalism as plants do.

Neo-liberalism is a cure for these diseases, allowing massive gains in living standards in every country where neo-liberal policy prescriptions are undertaken, with wealth creation being the major tool for fighting against nationalism. And the more neo-liberal a nation is, the more wealth is created.
 

Sagroth

Member
As a person on the autism spectrum(and one who used to get paid to attend functions in costume as the Be Wise Immunize Bee), being anti-vaxxer of any kind is an immediate disqualification.
 
It's pretty obvious to me that Stein is a puzzle piece in Russia's plan to influence US elections.
We've just seen the blueprint for that in the Brexit referendum where a fringe left-wing politician (Corbyn) who is openly aligned to Russia and who regularly goes on the "question more" network, weakened the remain camp to give a more favorable outcome to the Kremlin.
The same is true for Stein only in regards to splitting the left vote to help Trump.

When it comes to those outcomes favored by Russia in UK & US (and the right-wingers involved), the alignment to Kremlin is less direct and obvious. At the same time, UKIP's links to Russia are way more subtle than Trump's. Nonetheless, Trump's advisory and VP candidate Flynn did not shy away from going right into RT's ass (and neither did Jill Stein):

GkmYo0v.png
 

Condom

Member
I would actually agree with basically all of that.

From this it seems like you were using the actual definition of neo-liberalism, something that Jill Stein wasnt doing, and a lot of people on the hard left do not do. I was arguing against Jill Stein's broad interpretation of basically anything not socialist is neo-liberal, because I honestly don't know how you would describe the policies advocated in the democratic party platform and her speeches as neo-liberal (unless you - the general you - simply don't trust her and think she is a secret conservative). Her vision is clearly an expansion of the welfare state. I doubt much of that happens thanks to Republican obstructionism though.

While it is true that you can paint democrats under Bill Clinton as rather neo-liberal, it seems like an absurd mistake to assume that Hilary has the same ideas, her thinking hasnt changed, and/or will govern the same as her husband. That is taking away all her own thoughts and own agency and own speech, which is simply not right.

As for solutions, I think that there needs to be robust welfare programs to help pick up people when they are down and help people improve on their own if they want to take the initiative, but do so in a way that doesnt distort markets. I think it is much better policy to simply give poor people money to rent an apartment than it is to adopt a rent control policy. Just straight up giving people money has a lot less negative externalizations than rent control.

Ensuring that markets have open and transparent competition and have government take over sectors (like medicine) that simply do not work well in a capitalistic market economy is also essential.

I think we might differ on this because I am definitely pro-market - but just thought I would explain where I am coming from and why it seems I originally mistook your position. This is also the reason why Sanders and Corbyn's messages don't really resonate with me. While I like their welfare policies, they just seem anti-business and anti-market, and that to me just means a shit economy. Besides redistribution, economic growth is also an essential component of getting people out of poverty, getting the whole world out of poverty, and simply improving everyone's lives.
Sound like you'll fit the Pirate party, assuming they're the same in the UK as they are in the Netherlands.

Overall I also agree that you either give people money to spend freely or publicly produce the services that you deem necessary. As for the rent control example I think basic public housing is the best solution since the lower price bracket simply isn't profitable enough for private investors.

I'm a socialist because I believe in people's control over their own economy. That's also the fundamental idea behind the ideology. How we make that possible and how much control is really up to experimentation. But I really think democratizing the economy is the next big step for developed countries to take.

That's also my biggest fear for neo-liberalism and what it might become in the future ; People might lose all control over their economy. This because it becomes increasingly unclear (for the general public) where 'the economy' actually resides and who it's leaders are. Especially when governments are losing their power and liberal democracy as we know it loses it's influence and relevance.
 
Yes, how unfortunate for her that she chose to join and lead a party that accepts anti-science positions in order to attract deluded voters, and pandered to them instead of attempting to change that party.

Yeah, that's the mystery to me. The disgust with the Democrat party is based on a narrative that it's fundamentally corrupt and impossible to change from the inside (to be clear, I disagree with this, especially on a local level). I'm fascinated how many of my friends who are first-time Green party voters have naive optimism that "no, no, it's okay - this party will totally change!" even though everyone in the leadership shows zero interest. The Greens have some interest in remodeling as the "progressive" party, but the 1960s hippy-colored environmentalism isn't going away for several more elections and people need to accept it's baked in to the cake.
 

border

Member
Didn't she officially come out as a vaccine advocate on Twitter? Shortly before she warned of the dangers of exposing children to Wifi, of course...
 
What fucking incentive would there be for pharmaceutical companies to be lax about the composition of their vaccines to the point where they'd need to bribe to CDC and FDA

edit: it looks like people are misunderstanding what she's saying. It doesn't sound like she's anti-vax, more like anti-government. She's calling the CDC and FDA into question. On what grounds though is beyond me.

No it is anti-vax. Of course being anti-vax makes you look like an absolute nut bag, so instead of doing that you attack periphery issues that try to make vaccines legal but impossible to get.

Standard american political tactics. It is disgusting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom