Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
102
-
81
-
48
-
28
-
28
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hollenfeuer1 I already got this spam from you once, thanks.
FDA approval is a rigorous process involving advanced statistical analyses such as multivariate regression. We've only just learned of the remote myocarditis and endocarditis risk. Once the full analysis is completed, the risk could turn out to be smaller than we think, or, if not, we may find that there is an easy way to determine who might get it, and everyone else can rest assured that it won't happen to them as a result of the vaccine. What do you think full approval means?
News reports don't substitute for this analysis. Right now, people who know someone who apparently got severe side effects from the vaccine are reluctant to take it, when those side effects could be rare, or related to some other medical condition -- or, they may turn out not to be side effects at all, but coincidental. Or the result of catching a bad cold right after getting vaccinated (my European relatives were told to take extra care not to get sick for 72 hours post vaccine; no one here has been told that, that I know of).
In short, everyone I know reluctant to take this vaccine has experienced at least one life-altering medical mistake, has all their other vaccines, and wears a mask. IOW, I don't know the nut cases whose stories we've been regaled with. As for what millions of Americans have taken, that includes a whole lot of stuff that no one should.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Suddenly, we have an entire gallery of miscreants "sure" that Chauvin should be acquitted. Gosh. Remember when this happened? I do.
"President Donald Trump remarked on the death of Minneapolis resident George Floyd, after video was released of Floyd being killed by a police officer who restrained him by pressing his knee into his neck for nine minutes and cut off his oxygen supply. The video sparked outrage across social media and the news, and has lead to widespread protests across the city.
"I feel very, very badly. That’s a very shocking sight," Trump said about the video, according to the Associated Press. He added, "That was a very, very bad thing that I saw. I saw it last night and I didn't like it...what I saw was not good. Very bad."
“This has nothing to do with politics and is only about making sure justice is done, and anyone who suggests otherwise is only seeking to sow division and ignore the President’s unwavering support for the African-American community,” Deere said. The president has been making an open bid to win Black support for his re-election in November.
On Wednesday (May 27), Trump tweeted that he has instructed the FBI and Department of Justice to investigate Floyd's death:
At my request, the FBI and the Department of Justice are already well into an investigation as to the very sad and tragic death in Minnesota of George Floyd....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
....I have asked for this investigation to be expedited and greatly appreciate all of the work done by local law enforcement. My heart goes out to George’s family and friends. Justice will be served!"
Even TRUMP saw it, back then. When did the talking points change? Who changed them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kitcat901 777.03 Accessory after the fact.—
(1)(a) Any person **not** standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
DUH
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmartin4641 A LOT of people have the credentials for the C-suite; that's how business is organized. If a CEO, CFO, etc., etc., were to leave tomorrow, the business moves on. A lot of qualified people also know what social media is, and have good judgment. This is the kind of guy who would not know he was exercising terrible judgment IF he were getting praise, likes, etc. These people present a risk. If you are telling me that everyone is like that now, and you can't easily replace him, then I agree. You're right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1