Vaccine choice, mandates and the fact that there's serious questions about whether it's a genocide plot, are literally the biggest issues in the country right now.
When trump says take the vaccine, it causes literally millions of leftist retards to stop and then be open to the idea that there is something bad in the vaccine at all. Without that entryway none of them would even tolerate the question being on the table.
It also causes lots of good, patriotic and well meaning Americans who don't have time to spend here all day and read up on vaccine injuries/deaths to say "Well, Trump took it and said to get it, so I guess we should get it too dear. Also, lets inject our kids as soon as we can..."
It's unconscionable.
There's literally no way to defend this aspect of his post-presidency.
My best argument is that Trump is taking essentially a neutral stance here by conforming with the “status quo”. This takes him out of the equation, debate-wise, and forces both us and our opponents to argue this issue differently. At this point, if Trump came out against the injections, it might satisfy us for a day or two, but would it actually help? Be honest too. I think it would radicalize the left even further and force them into a rigid pro-injection stance. And what would it do for our side? Less or more than that?
I also think this is one of those things where Trump feels he has to play along with the official television narrative that “all vaccines and pharmaceuticals in general are safe and effective - even the ones we were forced to recall”. I look at this similarly to his comments on 9/11, where he continues to pretend to believe in the official television narrative there too. I think it’s one of those things where it would be very difficult for a President to validate the conspiracy theory even if they believe or know the conspiracy theory is true just because their word carries so much authority. I also don’t think Presidents question the JFK assassination or Titanic or Sandy Hook either. I almost think this might relate to declassification, where Presidents are not allowed to discuss this stuff because of their official position.
Basically I think Trump is playing dumb on vaccines, as well as other things. He does this with things like Spygate too, where he pretends like he only knows as much as we do until it’s reported in the press. He even does this with Q, pretending he is just hearing about it when reporters ask him.
A neutral stance would be keeping one's opinion to oneself. This feeds into every terrible caricature of Trump as a egotistic blowhard who has to take credit for everything. YES, warp speed was a success - in as much as we have 4 poisonous vaccines in record time. He should drop it. I can think of no reason to discuss it, let alone say it's awesome and take credit for it. My circle of friends (admittedly small! lol) are more concerned about this than the border, the supply chain crisis, afghanistan (remember that?) and the 3.5 trillion spending COMBINED. This is the issue. This is end times type stuff. And he's pushing it.
Neutral isn’t quite the right word as I don’t mean neutral like “no opinion” but more like, “No shift from the mainstream narrative consensus.” Obviously the mainstream narrative consensus is not itself neutral but I think, to an extent, the comparison to 9/11 makes sense. As President, Trump would know about Building 7, the Bushes, Mossad, etc. But then when he delivers a commemorative speech about 9/11, he follows the mainstream “official” narrative. Is that lying? Well - yeah. But I also know what a tactical error it would be for him, at that time, to start going off on, “This was an inside job, the U.S. government was behind this, dancing Israelis!” I mean in an information war, when the truth about 9/11 has not been declassified or revealed, a President kind of has to go along with the official narrative.
When trump says take the vaccine, it causes literally millions of leftist retards to stop and then be open to the idea that there is something bad in the vaccine at all. Without that entryway none of them would even tolerate the question being on the table.
It also causes lots of good, patriotic and well meaning Americans who don't have time to spend here all day and read up on vaccine injuries/deaths to say "Well, Trump took it and said to get it, so I guess we should get it too dear. Also, lets inject our kids as soon as we can..."
It's unconscionable.
There's literally no way to defend this aspect of his post-presidency.
My best argument is that Trump is taking essentially a neutral stance here by conforming with the “status quo”. This takes him out of the equation, debate-wise, and forces both us and our opponents to argue this issue differently. At this point, if Trump came out against the injections, it might satisfy us for a day or two, but would it actually help? Be honest too. I think it would radicalize the left even further and force them into a rigid pro-injection stance. And what would it do for our side? Less or more than that?
I also think this is one of those things where Trump feels he has to play along with the official television narrative that “all vaccines and pharmaceuticals in general are safe and effective - even the ones we were forced to recall”. I look at this similarly to his comments on 9/11, where he continues to pretend to believe in the official television narrative there too. I think it’s one of those things where it would be very difficult for a President to validate the conspiracy theory even if they believe or know the conspiracy theory is true just because their word carries so much authority. I also don’t think Presidents question the JFK assassination or Titanic or Sandy Hook either. I almost think this might relate to declassification, where Presidents are not allowed to discuss this stuff because of their official position.
Basically I think Trump is playing dumb on vaccines, as well as other things. He does this with things like Spygate too, where he pretends like he only knows as much as we do until it’s reported in the press. He even does this with Q, pretending he is just hearing about it when reporters ask him.
A neutral stance would be keeping one's opinion to oneself. This feeds into every terrible caricature of Trump as a egotistic blowhard who has to take credit for everything. YES, warp speed was a success - in as much as we have 4 poisonous vaccines in record time. He should drop it. I can think of no reason to discuss it, let alone say it's awesome and take credit for it. My circle of friends (admittedly small! lol) are more concerned about this than the border, the supply chain crisis, afghanistan (remember that?) and the 3.5 trillion spending COMBINED. This is the issue. This is end times type stuff. And he's pushing it.
Neutral isn’t quite the right word as I don’t mean neutral like “no opinion” but more like, “No shift from the mainstream narrative consensus.” Obviously the mainstream narrative consensus is not itself neutral but I think, to an extent, the comparison to 9/11 makes sense. As President, Trump would know about Building 7, the Bushes, Mossad, etc. But then when he delivers a commemorative speech about 9/11, he follows the mainstream “official” narrative. Is that lying? Well - yeah. But I also know what a tactical error it would be for him, at that time, to start going off on, “This was an inside job, the U.S. government was behind this, dancing Israelis!” I mean in an information war, when the truth about 9/11 has not been declassified or revealed, a President kind of has to go along with the official narrative.
Well, that is them being just as dumb as the covidian fascists...
Yes, they are all on board. Before the election they tried to attack him on this but as soon as they won it's been full speed ahead.