“For the September 14, 2021 Gubernatorial Recall Election,” according to the CA Secretary of State’s Quick Facts Sheet [PDF], “all active registered California voters will receive their ballot in the mail.” The ballot will contain two questions: (1) Whether California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom shall be Recalled, and (2) if Recalled, which of 46 official candidates should succeed him. Voters are expected to complete both parts of the ballot, even if they vote “NO” on the first question, though it is not a requirement.
California residents, who are 17-years old but will turn 18 on or before Sept. 14, can pre-register to vote. Otherwise eligible voters, who are not yet registered, can register to vote within 14 days of the Recall Election (by August 30) in order to receive a Vote-by-Mail ballot. Or, they can fill out a Conditional Voter Registration at the polls during either early, in-person voting or on Election Day.
For the reasons set forth in my July article, “Now May Be a Good Time to Reform or Eliminate California’s Gubernatorial Recall System”, this progressive believes the answer to question (1) of the ballot is simple and straightforward. I’ll vote “NO” only because the ballot does not contain the option to vote “HELL NO!”
This GOP-initiated Recall, which, per the California Voters’ Guide, will cost state taxpayers an estimated $246 million, is the product of a purely partisan abuse of the Recall process. It was engineered by an increasingly authoritarian and immensely unpopular Republican Party — a Party which hasn’t won a statewide election in California since 2006; a Party that accounts for less than 1 in 4 registered CA voters; a Party which lost the last Presidential Election in the Golden State by more than 5 million votes; a Party that knows its only prospect for winning lies in what it hopes to be a low turnout, Special Recall Election. It’s a cynical divide-the-vote-among-multiple-and-largely-unknown-candidates strategy that could potentially allow an otherwise unelectable Republican to prevail.
In recent television ads, sponsored by state Democrats and labor unions, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) described what will take place on Sept. 14 as a “Republican Recall”. Question (2) on the ballot reflects the accuracy of that assessment. Out of a total of 46 candidates on the second part of the ballot, 24 are Republicans. One other candidate, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Hewitt, is a Libertarian — the Party that embraces the deceptive ideology of the infamous Koch Brothers and hard-right ideologues like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
The difficult decision for progressives is how to unite behind only one of the 21 remaining candidates so as to avert the disaster that could ensue if more than 50% of the electorate vote to recall the incumbent Governor, as recent polling suggests a very tight race on the ballot’s first question.
Allow me to explain why the election of either of the two leading question (2) candidates — Democrat Kevin Paffrath and Republican Larry Elder — both represent a clear and present danger if Newsom is recalled on question (1). Then, I’ll share my conclusion — along with information on each of the non-Republican/Libertarian candidates on the ballot — as to why Green Party Candidate Dan Kapelovitz, an ardent opponent of the “Republican Recall”, who is running only to avert disaster should the Recall succeed, is the candidate Democrats and progressives would do well to support…
[Disclaimer: The opinions set forth here are solely those of the author and should not be construed as an endorsement of any one candidate by The BRAD BLOG.]
Dangerously bad top choices
Where earlier polls suggested Californians would reject the Recall by a wide margin, a recent SurveyUSA poll conducted for the San Diego Union Tribune found that 51% of those surveyed intend to vote “yes” to recall the Governor. That same poll found the Democrat Paffrath, at 27%, led all other candidates, including the second place right-wing radio shock jock Republican Elder, who garnered 24%.
Given that Elder, the anti-choice, Trump-loving right-winger, has gone so far as to refer to climate change as a “crock” and expressed the belief that the ideal minimum wage should be “$0.00” — slavery? — an unsuspecting progressive might come to believe that the little-known Paffrath’s lead over Elder is good news. It isn’t.
On his LinkedIn Profile, Paffrath, a 29-year old real estate developer, boasts that he’s a “self-made millionaire with a net worth of over $20 million”. As revealed by L.A. Magazine, Paffrath’s lack of empathy for those less fortunate than he is reflected by his extraordinarily callous approach to homelessness. Paffrath wants the National Guard to round up the unhoused and deposit them…somewhere.
UCLA Law Professor Gary Blaisi described Paffrath’s proposal as “the poorest substitute for a policy on homelessness that I’ve seen in 38 years,” according to L.A. Magazine.
This site recently published The Legal Case for Compulsory Vaccinations — a case that was bolstered on August 12 when the U.S. Supreme Court summarily rejected a legal challenge to an Indiana University mandate that, with limited exceptions, requires all students, faculty and staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Gavin Newsom was the first Governor to impose a mandate that all State employees either receive COVID vaccinations or be repeatedly tested. Anyone, who is not taken in by dangerous right-wing disinformation, should appreciate that this bold and decisive decision underscores one of the reasons why Newsom is one of the best and most responsible Governors in the nation. Recently, Newsom imposed the same mandate for both public and private school teachers and employees. This past week, under Newsom’s leadership, the CA Department of Health issued an order that all visitors to patients inside hospitals must meet the same COVID vaccination criteria.
Epidemiologists are clear on the medical need for COVID mask and vaccine mandates. The federal government’s top COVID advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, recently asserted that, absent mass vaccinations, we will be furnishing this deadly virus with an “ample opportunity” to mutate — a potential that could lead to variants that may ultimately defeat the current vaccines.
Both Elder and Paffrath are prepared to defy the science of epidemiology. Elder vowed to repeal all COVID mask and vaccine mandates. Paffrath intends to make all COVID safety measures “optional”.
Sheer idiocy! Would anyone think it a bright idea to make texting-while-driving “optional”?
We are already seeing the deadly results that flow from Governors who defy the science of epidemiology. Florida’s population, 21.6 million, accounts for approximately 6.4% of the total U.S. population. Yet, as a result of the anti-science edicts pronounced by the Sunshine State’s Trump-supporting Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida now accounts for more than 19% of all new COVID cases in the U.S.
Make no mistake. There are deadly consequences linked to the refusal to mandate COVID vaccinations. According to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the unvaccinated account for 99.5% of all new COVID deaths.
Even if they were otherwise qualified, Elder and Paffrath’s “optional” COVID safety measures render them unfit to serve as the Governor of this nation’s most populous State.
Why Green Party’s Dan Kapelovitz is the Best Choice for Progressives
Last month, when interviewed on-air by Brad Friedman, I said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that I was inclined to vote for the Green Party candidate on the second question, in order to send the Republican sponsors of the Recall a message that their misuse of the Recall process could lead to a Governor who is to the Left of our current Governor. I shouldn’t have said that. This is not a time to be cavalier.
The selection of a candidate on question (2) entails much more than sending a message. It entails a responsible decision as to who would be the best choice to serve as this State’s chief executive in the event that Newsom is unjustly recalled — a decision that this progressive arrived at only after examining the information available online regarding each of the 21 candidates who were not listed on the ballot as either a Republican or a Libertarian.
Oddly enough, as a result of that more exacting scrutiny, I’ve concluded that one of the two Green Party candidates, Dan Kapelovitz, represents the best progressive option.
Ideologically, the Green Party Platform is indistinguishable from the “Promise” offered by the U.S. House Progressive Caucus. The Green Party Platform calls for the development of a “socially and racially just, ecologically sustainable, democratic and peaceful society that exists in harmony with nature.” It describes a need for “‘EcoSocialism’, founded on democracy, equity, and solidarity.”
In essence, the Green Party calls for what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) describes as “democratic socialism”.
As I previously observed at Common Dreams, with respect to Sanders’ landmark June 12, 2019 Democratic Socialism Address:
The critical distinction between members of the Green Party and the FDR-like New Dealers, who make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is tactical. Sanders, for example, decided to run for President as a Democrat based upon the mathematical realities of the two-party system. But that math doesn’t apply during a California Recall process that the Constitutional Scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of U.C. Berkley’s Law School, argues is unconstitutional because it would allow someone to replace Newsom even though that individual received far fewer votes than the incumbent Governor.
The ideological gap between FDR-like progressives, irrespective of whether they are registered Democrats or Greens, and textbook socialists can be found on question (2) of the Recall ballot.
David Moore, a special education teacher for the Oakland Unified School District, is listed on the ballot as having no party preference. In fact, he’s the Socialist Equity Party candidate. Moore advocates voting “NO” on the Recall for purely ideological reasons even as the Socialist Equality Party’s candidate joins Republicans in criticizing Newsom’s handling of the pandemic.
Where progressives, like Sanders and Warren, seek to tackle inequality via such measures as a wealth tax, Moore’s militant textbook socialism breaks through with a call to “seize the wealth of the ruling elite” — an action that would likely violate the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In the event Newsom is recalled, a critical issue is whether a new Governor could work efficiently with the Democratic super-majority in the California State Legislature. That would likely be impossible for any of the Republicans on the second part of the ballot. But it would also be a tall order for a militant textbook socialist like Moore, who calls for an “independent political mobilization of the working class against both the Democrats and Republicans.”
Dennis Richter, a “Retail Store Worker”, who is listed as having no party preference on the ballot, is, in actual fact, the Socialist Workers Party candidate. He opposes what he describes as “the capitalist parties” and, as can be expected from a textbook socialist, laudably champions the working class. Unfortunately, there’s no reason to believe this Walmart employee is remotely capable of assuming the awesome administrative responsibilities of the chief executive of a state so large that, if it was its own country, would represent the 5th largest economy in the world.
Disturbingly, Richter displays a profound ignorance of epidemiology. He joins with Republicans — albeit, from a working class perspective — claiming that Newsom’s COVID shutdown rules were “arbitrary” and needlessly caused the “destruction of many small businesses”.
There can be no doubt that pre-vaccine shutdowns all across the nation had an adverse economic impact. Newsom’s shutdown orders, however, were driven by science. People like Richter might ask themselves how many more Californians would have died had Newsom not placed science before the economic impact of shutdowns? The socially irresponsible, who believe it somehow inconvenient to wear masks and socially distance, overlook last October’s University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s estimate that implementation of those two, simple public safety measures would save 130,000 lives in the U.S.
Richter’s background as a Walmart worker contrasts sharply with the Green Party’s Kapelovitz, a criminal defense attorney who received a juris doctor from UCLA Law School in 2009. Where Richter and Moore joined Republicans in criticizing Newsom, at his website, Kapelovitz makes it clear that he is an ardent opponent of the Recall. His decision to run is based solely on the need to provide a progressive alternative if Newsom is unjustly recalled: “If we don’t stop the Republican recall,” Kapelovitz writes, “a Governor like Larry Elder will run us off a COVID cliff.”
The Green Party candidate’s integrity in championing “NO” on the Recall campaign, his progressive bona fides, and his educational and professional background reveal to this progressive Democrat that Kapelovitz is vastly superior to all of the other candidates on the second part of the ballot. By way of contrast, for example, Heather Collins, the other Green Party candidate, is a hairdresser.
…And the rest
Although Major Singh, who also offers no party preference, holds a Masters in Computer Science and Operations Research, his website is devoid of any useful information beyond a vague call for “respect, integrity, balance and sharing”.
Business Standard reveals that Kevin K. Kaul, another no party preference candidate, could not remotely be considered progressive. He’s the Founder and Chair of the U.S. Business Forum, a proponent of the international “free trade” agreements that have had a devastating impact upon the U.S. working class.
Democrat Patrick Kilpatrick, an actor/director/screenwriter, described Newsom as an “ineffective” and “disgraced” Governor. (Kilpatrick’s reckless decision, in the midst of the Republican Recall, to bash Newsom should, in this progressive’s view, serve to eliminate him from serious consideration.) Like his Republican counterparts, Kilpatrick calls for lower taxes while making no mention of the climate crisis.
Democrat Joel Ventresca, is a self-described progressive, who previously ran an unsuccessful campaign for Mayor of San Francisco. While a number of his policies, which include eliminating homelessness and mass incarceration, along with his desire to make California the first state to reach net-zero carbon emissions, are laudable, Ventresca’s education (Masters in Public Administration), age and professional status — retired airport analyst — do not rise to the same level as Kapelovitz, who seems better positioned to vigorously assume the duties of a Governor.
In terms of education and profession, the credentials of Brandon Ross, a physician and attorney, are, at face value, seemingly adequate. Ross graduated Summa Cum Laude from UC Davis with a degree in Genetics. But Ross is not a progressive. To the contrary, he describes himself as a “moderate” and fails to offer any policy proposals beyond vague generalities.
Ross, a hair-transplant specialist, also has a troubling past. According to NBC San Diego, Ross “was stopped by police in October 2011 after his estranged wife reported he had threatened to kill himself.” During the stop, officers “found a loaded gun and extra ammunition” along with “$25,000 in cash, four pills containing Hydrocodone…hypodermic needles…tubes and plungers.” Ross, who now acknowledges past substance abuse that began in response to a back injury, admitted he’d ordered 7,000 doses of Hydrocodone for himself.
“In August, 2012,” NBC San Diego added, “the Medical Board suspended Ross’s license for four months and placed him on probation for 10 years.”
Michael Loebs is listed without a party preference on the ballot. He holds a Masters Degree in and has taught Political Science at SFSU. Some of his policy proposals, Universal Basic Income, are not all that controversial among progressives. Others, such as a return of all of California’s federally-owned land to Native Americans — good luck getting that one approved by Congress — and his call for California to “secede” from the United States, place Loebs on what might be regarded as the fringe Left.
Also listed without a party preference, with a Bachelor’s degree in Marketing Finance, Denis Lucy appears to be a candidate who has given little thought to substantive policies. His meandering answer to California’s homelessness crisis essentially proposed the availability of day labor.
No one should take serious the candidacy of candidate Jeremiah “Jeremy” Marciniak. Sporting an Associate Degree (Jr. College) in Business and no party preference, Marciniak produced an uninspiring YouTube video in which he informed us that now was the “time to take a stand”.
In her LinkedIn Profile, Democrat Jacqueline McGowan describes herself as a self-employed “patient advocate” who also serves as a Cannabis lobbyist. She laudably calls for “environmentally sound infrastructure projects to address the impacts of climate change” and proposes to meet the homelessness crisis via public/private cooperation to build high-density housing on former industrial sites . (One shutters to think of the possible cleanup costs should there be toxic waste on those former industrial sites.)
The foregoing proposals, as revealed by our in-depth coverage of a recent federal court decision, reflect that McGowan suffers from a profound lack of appreciation for the extent to which homelessness is tied to a century of structural racism and systemic inequality. That court decision reveals that L.A.’s public/private partnership on such projects was rife with corruption and inefficiency, and, by comparison, Newsom’s actions entailed vastly superior, cost effective and efficient methods for addressing what our besieged incumbent Governor described as “the wrenching reality of families, children and seniors living unfed on a concrete bed.”
Neither Democrat Holly L. Bade, a Director of a Private Ministerial Association, no party preference candidate Adam Papagan, a tour guide who supports the Republican Recall, nor perennial “celebrity” candidate, Angelyne aka the “billboard queen” belong on the ballot. The same may be said of Democrat John R. Drake, a 22-year old, well-meaning progressive college student who only holds an AA (Jr. College) degree in Political and Social Science.
Aside from his support for ensuring a living wage for all full-time work, there is nothing to indicate that no party preference candidate James Hanink, a former LMU Professor, is remotely progressive. To the contrary, his “pro-life” policies put him in line with Republicans who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Democrat Daniel Watts is a self-described “free speech lawyer”, who, when asked to address how to deal with the crisis of the unhoused, illogically responded: “Free college.”
Conclusion
Make no mistake. This Recall election is a dangerous, naked, attempted power grab by a Republican Party which knows no other way to try and win a statewide election in California. All residents should take the time to vote via a hand-marked paper ballot, as soon as possible, with a solid “NO” on the first question, in opposition of removal of Gov. Gavin Newsom. All Democrats and progressives would do well to help the state avert a very worst-case scenario by voting on the second question for the Green Party’s Dan Kapelovitz.
* * *
CORRECTION: We originally characterized Paffrath’s position on the homeless as wanting to round them up and “then transport and deposit these impoverished human beings — men, women and children — in open fields.” In fact, while Paffrath “proposes ordering the National Guard to clear them from the streets within 60 days of his taking office,” according to Los Angeles Magazine, depositing them into an open field was, in fact, GOP candidate Caitlyn Jenner’s stated position on CA’s homelessness crisis, not Paffrath’s. We regret the error.
Ernest A. Canning is a retired attorney, author, and Vietnam Veteran (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). He previously served as a Senior Advisor to Veterans For Bernie. Canning has been a member of the California state bar since 1977. In addition to a juris doctor, he has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science. Follow him on twitter: @cann4ing
Dear Brad and Ernest, Many thanks for this useful guide to the California Recall Election. I have a genetic auto-inflammatory condition and two children who have inherited the triggering gene. None of us can safely have the Covid-19 vaccines. But even if we could, we would not. As a father of a child with “special needs”, I have spent the last 16 years immersed in the “special needs” community, and have met numerous families whose children have been damaged by vaccines. This includes my own African-American doctor, whose son developed autism shortly after having the MMR vaccine. Thanks to a CDC whistleblower, we now know that vaccine damage cover-ups are another example of medical racism. Black, Hispanic and Native American children who receive the MMR before the age of 3 have between two and four times the risk of developing autism. My doctor has spent the last 20 years researching vaccine safety, and is the most ardent critic I know of vaccine mandates, because there is a subset of the population who are at much higher risk of an adverse reaction to vaccines, and the CDC is not researching or releasing data on that. VAERS data released on August 6th 2021 by the CDC showed a total of 545,338 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 12,366 deaths and 70,105 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 30, 2021. Make no mistake. There are deadly consequences linked to the mandating of COVID vaccinations. What you both fail to recognize is that there are very good reasons for people like me to be unable and/or unwilling to have the Covid-19 vaccines. After reading your article, I was very tempted to vote for Dan Kapelovitz, but I am concerned that he seems to be a supporter of vaccine mandates. As a progressive and a green, there is nothing more important to me than my sovereignty over my own body and my parental right to make the best decision for my children’s health based on ALL the information, not just the official information. That is more important to me than any other issue. Just as the right to choose was the most important issue for my feminist mother. I will therefore be voting FOR the recall and for the most progressive anti-mandate candidate that I can find. By branding everyone who is rightly concerned about vaccine safety risks and about regulatory capture of the CDC & FDA by the pharmaceutical industry as anti-vaxxers and dangerous right-wing idiots, you fail to understand how visceral an issue this is and how it crosses and transcends political party preferences and ideological differences, and you feed the divisions and anger in our society. Thanks to the disparaging attitude of progressives and liberals toward people like me who are questioning the safety of the Covid vaccines, I now find myself making friends among Libertarians, Republicans and Trump supporters, and finding common ground with people I would otherwise have gone out of my way to avoid. When I first heard Hilary Clinton make her “basket of deplorables” comment, I told my friends that her comment would ignite a fire of anger and resentment across middle America that might lose her the election. I now know what it is like to be cast into that “basket of deplorables”, though not by a corrupt establishment Democrat, but rather by my own progressive and green brothers and sisters. So thank you for helping me to develop empathy and understanding for those I previously had little understanding of and empathy for. Yours for truth, freedom and justice for all! Ben
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Ben Stargazer @1.
Neither I, nor I suspect, Dan Kapelovitz, favor compulsory COVID vaccinations for “everyone”. To, the contrary, in my earlier article, The Legal Case for Compulsory Vaccinations, I wrote:
That exception would obviously include what you describe as “a subset of the population that are at a much higher risk”.
Also, as to the very young, keep in mind that the FDA has not, as yet, authorized COVID vaccines for anyone under 12-years of age. So, obviously, they would be excluded from any mandate.
I sincerely hope that, within that context, you would not allow a vaccine mandate to lead you into an alignment with the science-rejecting GOP.
Thanks for your response, Ernest
The point is that we don’t know who is at higher risk of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines, precisely because the Covid vaccine safety trials specifically excluded anyone who might be at higher risk. The vaccine companies have been given no incentive to investigate who is at risk from their vaccines, because they have been given exemption from liability for harm caused by their products. And yet the mantra being promoted by almost everyone in the mainstream and even not so mainstream media is that “vaccines are safe and effective”. I almost never hear anyone qualifying that statement. The truth is that no vaccine has ever been tested for long-term health and safety risks. So the best that we can say is that Covid vaccines appear to be safe in the short-term for most people, but there is an unknown subset of people for whom they will be fatal or cause long-term health problems. And over the long-term, we have no idea what the effects of these vaccines might be. So who is to determine who “may be medically contraindicated”. The vaccine companies? No thanks! The thoroughly corrupted and compromised CDC, FDA and American Medical Association? No thanks! As a life-long progressive and a green, I am all too well aware of how big money and a system based on the maximization of profit has corrupted our governments, industries, and our research and education systems. Science is a work in progress, is constantly evolving and is never settled. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that we still have a very imperfect understanding of the human immune system. It was only recently that we learned about the human virome and about the interferon arm of the human immune system. To force people to have a vaccine that is based at best on inadequate and shifting science and at worst on compromised and deceptive science is outrageous. It seems to me that you are picking and choosing the science you want to believe and choose to report and promote, which is no different from what some members of the GOP are doing. The only honest scientist would say we don’t know enough to make such a sweeping statement as “the Covid 19 vaccines are safe”, and we certainly don’t know enough about their long-term safety to force people to have them. I do not find your support for a vaccine mandate progressive in the slightest. I find it fascistic. And if you genuinely believe the vaccines are safe, surely the more enlightened position would be for progressives in the wealthy countries to forego the vaccine ourselves and ship our allocations of vaccine to those areas of the world where people’s immune systems are even weaker than the immune systems of most Americans or where Covid treatments and health facilities are in much shorter supply than they are in the wealthiest country on the planet. A truly progressive position would be to demand an end to the capture of our government advisory and regulatory agencies, end the promotion of unhealthy diets and lifestyles, and wage a massive campaign to strengthen people’s immune systems naturally.
Re Ben Stargazer @3. I’ve seen some data re exclusion of pregnant women and the elderly from early safety trials, but nothing to support your assertion that all of what you vaguely describe as “high risk” individuals.
I suspect some of your concerns may be dated, especially given the subsequent full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine and what Dr. Fauci has said about the extent to which widespread vaccinations have enhanced the findings that led to the original emergency use approvals.
Do you have a link to the 12,366 deaths that you assert have been tied to COVID vaccinations?
I would no way minimize even one death from an adverse reaction to a COVID vaccine, but keep in mind that, as of this date, there have been 648,126 COVID deaths in the U.S. and that 99.5% of all recent COVID deaths in the U.S. have involved unvaccinated people. Of course, with all vaccines, even the Salk vaccine that I received back in the ’50s, one can’t measure the “long term risks”, but, in the face a death count we’re now facing amongst the unvaccinated, I have to question whether you’re placing a high value on speculations about unknown long term risks before the immediate carnage.
Ben Stargazer @1:
First, Ben, it would be helpful if you hit the ENTER key a couple of times occasionally to create paragraphs. Would make your comments much easier to read.
As someone with autism in my own family, under similar circumstances, allow me to note, as the famous saying goes, “correlation is not causation”. Of course, given when autism general develops and when MMR vaccines are given, it is not unusual for someone to “develop autism shortly after having the MMR vaccine.” Is also likely that your doctor’s son developed autism shortly after eating a banana for the first time. But there is no more credible, peer-reviewed studies supporting the idea that MMR vaccines cause autism than that bananas do. Just FYI.
So, you are aware that the CDC does not actually “release” VAERS data, per se. The VAERS is a database that anybody can (and does) add records to. You can go in there right now and file a report, truthful or otherwise, that you got your vaccine shot yesterday, and today can’t walk. That would show up as “VAERS data”. In short, the VAERS database is both unreliable and proof of absolutely nothing. You do know that, right? If not, here’s a short article on “why Antivaxxers love it”.
I’ll take your word for it that you are either of those things. But, no, you do not have a “parental right” to make decision for your children’s health that harms the health of others.
And while you are welcome to use “unofficial information” as you see fit, you should know that almost all of it is there to mislead you, not to help keep you or your children safe. Again, see my link above to an explanation of the VAERS database.
You are, of course, welcome to do so. Even though, if successful, you are likely to put your health and your childrens far more at risk than it currently is in California.
I can’t speak for Ernie, but I regular recognize that vaxxine denialists, while mostly coming from the disinformed Right, also include disinformed people from the Left as well. In fact, a few weeks, I opened up an entire radio show to callers to explain why they were not getting vaccinated. You’ll be stunned to leearn that virtually every one of them shared long-ago debunked reasons for not getting vaxxed.
Then it sounds like their misinformation and hoaxing is working well on you. That’s a shame.
If you are regarding her as “corrupt” and are offended by her accurate statement about “deplorables”, you are either not a progressive/Green at all, or are an easy mark for those hoping you would fall for exactly what you have fallen for.
And thanks for both what is either disinformation or a very good example of how easily folks like yourself can be played by those, unlike Ernie and me, who do not have any interest in your best interests or those of your family.
Ben Stargazer @3:
Now you are simply sharing disinformation on these pages.
You claimed….
That is simply untrue. We know, for example, exactly who is at (exceedingly small) risk of clotting from the J&J vaccine. How do you suppose we know that?
Actually, while that may be true of the COVID vaccines (because they haven’t been around long enough to test for long-term risks), other vaccines certainly have been.
But, sticking just to your point about the COVID vaccines, we absolutely know that the short term benefits FAR outweigh any risks. We have a test pool of several billion people on that at this point. More than 600,000 who didn’t get vaxxed in the U.S. have died. The number who were fully vaxxed and died can be counted in the low dozens, last I checked, if even that high.
How is the science here “compromised and deceptive”? (The fact that you don’t trust the “captured” FDA, CDC and AMA doesn’t actually count as evidence for your very serious assertion. Just FYI.)
Except they are making shit up out of whole cloth, and I am reporting actual science, based on peer-reviewed studies. Other than that, totally the same. (sigh…)
As of July 19, out of 339 million doses given to 187.2 million people, there had only been three deaths that were linked to taking a COVID vaccine. Those entailed blood clots that had been linked to the J & J vaccine.
In other words, as of July 19 not a single American died from taking either of the two mNRA vaccines.