2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That would indeed maximize the percentage of Americans promising to move to Canada after the election. Perhaps Canada should build a wall.

But will the children of those that move away be Canadian citizens?

[Arles]

Yeah, it's those damn anchor babies again

[Solecismic]

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What happens to SuperPac money is a case like Perry's? They still have tens of millions of dollars.

Looks like the SuperPac doesn't quite know yet what to do.

Rick Perry 2016: He is out but his super PAC's not quite done yet - POLITICO

[JPhillips]

At some point I saw a figure closer to forty million. If that was accurate, they spent quite a lot. How would they determine who gets money back and who doesn't?

[Thomkal]

And you wonder why you are struggling in the polls Governor Walker?

Scott Walker 2016: Sweeping crackdown on unions proposed by Walker - POLITICO

[Izulde]

Just building on the shit he did in Wisconsin. Fuck him up the ass with a rusty railroad spike.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

And you wonder why you are struggling in the polls Governor Walker?

Scott Walker 2016: Sweeping crackdown on unions proposed by Walker - POLITICO

I know that I get all excited for a candidate that wants to take rights away from millions of Americans!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

And you wonder why you are struggling in the polls Governor Walker?

He's an ideal Sec of Labor.

Looking at the laundry list version of his proposal, it's one of the greatest things I've seen in years & quite likely in my lifetime.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

And you wonder why you are struggling in the polls Governor Walker?

Scott Walker 2016: Sweeping crackdown on unions proposed by Walker - POLITICO

He was the candidate most hurt by having an uninteresting performance in the first debate. He needs attention.

This is an interesting piece from Politifact about Walker's claim that FDR did not support collective bargaining for public-sector employees.

Did FDR oppose collective bargaining for government workers? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Back before Kennedy, about 35% of private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now that's below 10% - largely because we've outsourced our manufacturing industries.

And back before Kennedy, about 10% of public-sector workers belonged to a union. It jumped to 25% under Kennedy. Today, that's around 35-40%.

Many conservatives feel FDR was a good counterbalance to a system that favored big business, but Kennedy, Johnson, the whole Great Society, was the beginning of the end for the economy. Walker speaks directly to that group.

The '60s also brought important civil rights issues to the forefront. It's hard to separate the economic issues from the social issues - where the changes in the '60s were very positive.

Walker needs to own an issue in order to move his campaign forward. This is his choice.

Personally, I agree that collective bargaining doesn't belong in the public sector. When you're bargaining against a government that's spending taxpayer money and has no incentive to save, there's no realistic spending control. Politicians can afford to be generous with other people's money. So it's essentially buying votes.

[digamma]

Someone get Walker a handkerchief. Dude is sweating profusely.

[digamma]

Jeb. He gone.

[Solecismic]

Debate thoughts...

First, taping everything, then going out for an evening of bar trivia makes for a long night. We didn't even win tonight.

The JV debate was a bit painful. I don't see any of these four candidates breaking through.

Graham: I get what he's saying, but he seems to be positioning himself as the candidate who hides under the bed and scares children.

Santorum: A lot of self-congratulation for a guy who has only two turns in the Senate and has been out of office for eight years.

Pataki: I think he played as well as he ever has, but mainly he seemed like a moderate voice of reason paired with three who are fighting for a different audience. In a less partisan world, he might have a chance, but he wasn't inspiring.

Jindal: I become more and more disappointed with him every time out. He's frustrated, and it shows. He seems to want to dedicate his candidacy to taking down Trump. Not a bad idea, but I don't think it works that way. He has a solid command of the issues, but he also seems like he thinks he's always the smartest one in the room.

The varsity debate was really good. After CNN said it would try to make the candidates address each other, I thought it would be a long stream of gotcha, but the moderators were very much on topic and held control just enough to accomplish what they were looking for without being nasty. Fox did a great job with the opener last month and CNN met their challenge. We're getting a much better picture of the candidates than ever before.

Trump: He's learning a little about controlling himself, but he still has very little substance. I think he has an unrealistic view of what a president does. While the idea of the president being an outsider appeals to me, Trump doesn't. I want someone who can articulate a plan. Being a leader is more than just being able to command a stage.

Bush: His body language and demeanor are of someone who really doesn't want to be there. In many ways, he's the moderate we may need. His command of the issues is excellent. But is he a leader? If you could combine the two Bush brothers, you might well have a decent president. Separately, I don't think so.

Walker: His instinct is still trying to tell people why they should vote for him. But he's not a commanding speaker and I'm not sure why he continues with this approach. It would be easy to forget he's there.

Kasich: In terms of qualifications, he's exceptional. But he's also probably the worst speaker in the entire group and seems more like a guy you'd want in your cabinet rather than in the Oval Office.

Fiorina: No question the audience loved her. Her responses to Trump were perfect. She's very polished. I think she will continue to gain. I want an honest assessment of how she did at HP. We might be at a point where any assessment would be hopelessly political, but I want to know.

Christie: I thought he did very well, but all the pandering to the audience seems like false humility.

Paul: He did a good job separating his ideas from the rest of the group. But he always seems angry and maybe a little confused on foreign issues.

Cruz: He is wonderfully articulate and if he has staying power, he should grab the right-wing vote. But he's probably too extreme for the position. I always feel with this type of candidacy that they're just going to offend the other side on day one of the presidency, and then it's a four-year battle to get anything passed.

Rubio: At some point, he and Bush will square off for the vote from more moderate Republicans who don't mind an insider. He struggles to get his opinions out there, however.

Huckabee: We've know Huckabee for what seems like decades. Nice guy, good speaker, way out there politically.

Carson: The mature, half-asleep approach is pleasant, but I still have no idea what he wants to do in office.

My thoughts about points gained or lost today (points being arbitrary):

Fiorina +5, Christie +3, Cruz +3, Rubio +2, Pataki +1, Trump 0, Huckabee 0, Santorum 0, Bush -2, Carson -2, Kasich -3, Paul -3, Walker -4, Graham -5, Jindal -6.

[Dutch]

I don't watch this crap, but after reading this, I feel like I did. Nice recap.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Debate thoughts...

Seems like a reasonable recap of events best I can tell, I'm going to use it as a jumping off point for just a few observations. Saves some typing

Graham: I get what he's saying, but he seems to be positioning himself as the candidate who hides under the bed and scares children.

A uber-left friend watching tonight described him as possibly the most farthest out there of the JV when he spoke. "At least Santorum believes what he says, Graham just seems to be making up shit randomly"

Jindal: He seems to want to dedicate his candidacy to taking down Trump.

I never really thought of him previously as an establishment wonk but that seems to be the position he's trying to solidify here. Granted, he may have always been & I just failed to pick up on it strongly but it seems like an odd angle for a guy who seems to be all but dead in the water as a candidate.

Fox did a great job with the opener last month and CNN met their challenge. We're getting a much better picture of the candidates than ever before.

We obviously disagree on the job Fox did in round one but I thought it was interesting to see numerous compliments from my friends (all conservative to arch-conservatives) praising CNN for their coverage & often bashing Fox for their post-game coverage in the same social media post. Of all the participants in this election season I'm not at all sure that FXNC hasn't done themselves more harm than anyone long term. I get a sense that they've damaged the trust their core audience had in them, and not by just a little bit either.

Bush: His body language and demeanor are of someone who really doesn't want to be there.

I thought it might be pretty telling that someone that's supposed to be in at least the upper half of the varsity squad was the least mentioned candidate of the bunch in the reactions I saw within my circle. This seems like what a flagging candidacy looks like, not only does he not want to be there but I'm not really sure how much longer he will be there.

Walker: It would be easy to forget he's there.

My 17 y/o (*this will be his first election, so he's pretty focused) made an interesting comment about Walker tonight. The exact phrasing escapes me but it was to the effect that he does pretty well when he speaks but got so little opportunity tonight that he seems to have no chance. Just struck me interesting.

Fiorina: No question the audience loved her.

I just don't see how in the blue hell she can get around this bit forever
Fiorina said for the first time Wednesday night that she would support the so-called DREAM Act ... Source: Los Angeles Times coverage of 2010 CA Senate Debate , Sep 2, 2010

At some point she either has to own that position or walk it back. She can't have a free pass on it forever ... can she?

Paul: He did a good job separating his ideas from the rest of the group. But he always seems angry and maybe a little confused on foreign issues.

Again I'll defer to my son, who summed it up beautifully "That guy is just nuts. He has no business on the stage".

Cruz: He is wonderfully articulate and if he has staying power, he should grab the right-wing vote.

Aside from a simple lack of trust for the guy, my thumbnail on him in discussions here was simply this "I like that he takes a hard stand, and love how he's always willing to irritate the left ... but I hate that he picks moments to do it when he's just dead wrong" (TPA was the example I had in mind particularly, that just simply wasn't the issue on which to try to dive on his sword afaic)

Huckabee: We've know Huckabee for what seems like decades. Nice guy, good speaker, way out there politically.

Much like Santorum, my overwhelming since of Huck's candidacy in 2016 is based almost entirely on his 2012 campaign. I've gotten virtually nothing from their current efforts (do they even exist?), they feel like ... time capsule candidates or something.

Carson: The mature, half-asleep approach is pleasant, but I still have no idea what he wants to do in office.

Like Fiorina, a candidate that needs to pick positions & own them one way or another (read his various immigration quotes & statements over the past 5 years, see if you can figure out where he really stands, damned if I can)
I like the guy in theory, he just feels so incredibly weak to me that my initial enthusiasm at his campaign announcement faded very quickly & I'm now largely disinterested in him & by him.

[Ryche]

Carson had a great chance to strongly challenge Trump on the vaccines and autism and totally backed down. If he can't take a stand there, that's just not a good sign for him.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Carson had a great chance to strongly challenge Trump on the vaccines and autism and totally backed down. If he can't take a stand there, that's just not a good sign for him.

I think a lot of it is because he is a doctor and not a politician. So he basically said in "Doctor speak" Trump is wrong about vaccines/autism and Trump is right about the idea of spreading the other vaccines out and not necessarily needing all of them. I felt like he answered the way our pediatrician would if my wife asked him the same question. He would nicely tell her not to listen to the "vaccine truthers" but in a way that didn't make her feel dumb.

My thought on Carson after last night is he seems to be much more intelligent than most of the other candidates but not probably somebody we want leading the country. Somebody like Putin or Jinping would take advantage of his nice polite demeanor.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again I'll defer to my son, who summed it up beautifully "That guy is just nuts. He has no business on the stage".

Sounds like he was just brought up by you and has a lot of the extreme crazy viewpoints that you do. I am nowhere near the fan of Rand than I was of his father and think he is way too green to be president of the United States but saying he is nuts from just the 5 minutes a speaking time he had at last night's debate just means your son is rehashing his dad's talking points about Libertarian leaning candidates. What did he say that would be considered "nuts"? (And I don't doubt your son said that but I could probably pull 10-15 posts of yours over the years saying that verbatim about Ron Paul so that is why I consider it a rehash of your view and nothing he saw in the debate)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Fiorina: No question the audience loved her. Her responses to Trump were perfect. She's very polished. I think she will continue to gain. I want an honest assessment of how she did at HP. We might be at a point where any assessment would be hopelessly political, but I want to know.

She laid off a bunch of people, spent $24 billion to buy Compaq which provided no value for the company, gave up a portion of their most profitable business (printers), had to lay off more people, watched the value of the company drop 50% during her tenure, then got a golden parachute of $40 million on the way out.

Also her decisions as Lucent destroyed that company right after she left. Cooked the books you may say by running up irresponsible amounts of debt.

She's honestly one of the worst CEO's in tech history. I'm still flabbergasted that she's not laughed out of that room. It can't be hard to find a female CEO out there who didn't lose billions of dollars, can it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Trump is right about the idea of spreading the other vaccines out and not necessarily needing all of them.

There is no benefit to spacing them out. No scientific evidence that shows it's beneficial. It's just pandering to morons.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no benefit to spacing them out. No scientific evidence that shows it's beneficial. It's just pandering to morons.

Well the only neurosurgeon/pediatrician running for president said you could space them out. I have three kids and 2 of them had no reaction whatsoever to vaccines but the third gets a pretty bad fever. My own pediatrician said you could change the schedule on a couple of the vaccines to lessen the impact. (Didn't say to avoid giving them or not to give the ones for the deadly diseases on schedule just to spread the other ones out a little) So apparently myself, our doctor, and Dr. Carson are all either panderers or morons? (I think this was even discussed in the vaccine thread how one group gets so self-righteous and vitriolic that it lessons the point they are trying to make)

[Kodos]

That's kinda how RainMaker makes all his points.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well the only neurosurgeon/pediatrician running for president said you could space them out. I have three kids and 2 of them had no reaction whatsoever to vaccines but the third gets a pretty bad fever. My own pediatrician said you could change the schedule on a couple of the vaccines to lessen the impact. (Didn't say to avoid giving them or not to give the ones for the deadly diseases on schedule just to spread the other ones out a little) So apparently myself, our doctor, and Dr. Carson are all either panderers or morons? (I think this was even discussed in the vaccine thread how one group gets so self-righteous and vitriolic that it lessons the point they are trying to make)

My pediatrician said the same thing. We get them all, just spaced out a slight bit more.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well the only neurosurgeon/pediatrician running for president said you could space them out. I have three kids and 2 of them had no reaction whatsoever to vaccines but the third gets a pretty bad fever. My own pediatrician said you could change the schedule on a couple of the vaccines to lessen the impact. (Didn't say to avoid giving them or not to give the ones for the deadly diseases on schedule just to spread the other ones out a little) So apparently myself, our doctor, and Dr. Carson are all either panderers or morons? (I think this was even discussed in the vaccine thread how one group gets so self-righteous and vitriolic that it lessons the point they are trying to make)

It's not being self-righteous when there is no evidence to support the claim.

Your doctor is probably pandering to you (hopefully that's what it is). There was a recent survey of pediatricians that stated they are willing to alter the schedule and the main reason was that they didn't want to lose patients over it.

And a reminder that the guy you are taking scientific advice from believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a myth.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sounds like he was just brought up by you and has a lot of the extreme crazy viewpoints that you do. I am nowhere near the fan of Rand than I was of his father and think he is way too green to be president of the United States but saying he is nuts from just the 5 minutes a speaking time he had at last night's debate just means your son is rehashing his dad's talking points about Libertarian leaning candidates. What did he say that would be considered "nuts"? (And I don't doubt your son said that but I could probably pull 10-15 posts of yours over the years saying that verbatim about Ron Paul so that is why I consider it a rehash of your view and nothing he saw in the debate)

Careful there.

If we are not to be inspired by the people we respect and love, then who?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

My pediatrician said the same thing. We get them all, just spaced out a slight bit more.

Yeah I mean I don't really want to be the dick that says people without children just don't understand but it is rough on both the infant (and the mom) if they have really bad side effects from the vaccines and scientifically it might not be a benefit but it might make the baby feel a little better to space some of them out. Equating that decision making with a "truther" or a moron seems like a bit harsh and out of touch with a large segment of society.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not being self-righteous when there is no evidence to support the claim.

Your doctor is probably pandering to you (hopefully that's what it is). There was a recent survey of pediatricians that stated they are willing to alter the schedule and the main reason was that they didn't want to lose patients over it.

And a reminder that the guy you are taking scientific advice from believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a myth.

My doctor is a creationist? You are definitely painting with a broad brush and clearly don't have a child that has really adverse reactions to some of the vaccines. What exactly does the science say about a kid that gets all the recommended vaccines on a different schedule than the "normal" one? No difference either? So again why is there pandering?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

My doctor is a creationist? You are definitely painting with a broad brush and clearly don't have a child that has really adverse reactions to some of the vaccines. What exactly does the science say about a kid that gets all the vaccines on a different schedule than the "normal" one? No difference either? So again why is there pandering?

No, Ben Carson is.

Your doctor likely doesn't give a shit if you space it out. It's just an extra visit for them to bill you for.

As for why there is pandering, it's to keep your business. It's no skin off their back either way.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, Ben Carson is.

Your doctor likely doesn't give a shit if you space it out. It's just an extra visit for them to bill you for.

As for why there is pandering, it's to keep your business. It's no skin off their back either way.

You don't pay for checkups but I don't expect your knowledge about young children to be that great from other statements you have made in this thread.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

You don't pay for checkups but I don't expect your knowledge about young children to be that great from other statements you have made in this thread.

Oh yeah, I forgot that doctors do that for free.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Oh yeah, I forgot that doctors do that for free.

You clearly aren't as familiar with the immunization schedule as you imply with all this research you have read. There are normal appointments every 3 months until a kid reaches 1 year and then every 6 months or yearly. The delay might take a non-life threatening vaccine and move it from an already scheduled 1 year visit to 2 year or an already scheduled 9 month to 1 year. Not creating any more appointments. So sorry that one doesn't work either. Maybe my doctor isn't pandering but just being a good guy and finding an easy solution to a problem some infants have?

Your response was so predictable that I already had mine written down.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

You clearly aren't as familiar with the immunization schedule as you imply with all this research you have read. There are normal appointments every 3 months until a kid reaches 1 year and then every 6 months or yearly. The delay might take a non-life threatening vaccine and move it from an already scheduled 1 year visit to 2 year or an already scheduled 9 month to 1 year. Not creating any more appointments. So sorry that one doesn't work either. Maybe my doctor isn't pandering but just being a good guy and finding an easy solution to a problem some infants have?

Your response was so predictable that I already had mine written down.

The public health issue is that lots of parents don't bring their children in for regular visits, so immunizations are bundled to get the most benefit for society. For the parents that regularly see the doctor, society will get the same benefit if they are spaced out. Remember, vaccine schedules are about societal protection, not an individual child's protection.

[RainMaker]

I'm not familiar with how often you take your kid to the doctor for regular checkups. Just the scientific evidence surrounding vaccines.

I don't know if I'd consider your doctor a "good guy" for delaying vaccines since it increases certain risks and offers no benefits. But I would consider this doctor to be good at business for keeping a customer happy.

[Dutch]

Is there scientific evidence that spacing it out is risky?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is there scientific evidence that spacing it out is risky?

As far as I know, it's only risky to the extent that people don't bring their kids back and then miss a vaccination.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is there scientific evidence that spacing it out is risky?

Yes. Because if you're exposed to a disease before you are vaccinated for it, then you're at greater risk of getting the disease.

[miked]

I believe there is evidence that spacing it out reduces compliance. The reason the schedule is clustered is because most people won't bring their kid to the doctor every few weeks, and most don't want vaccines still going at 3.

I delayed my son's HepB vaccine because, well both his parents are vaccinated and there is probably a less than 0.000001% chance of him getting HepB. There are a few that are newer that probably protect very few (not high incidence in this country, like rotavirus which killed like 25 kids/year) but is a potential source of morbidity. But people underestimate the benefit of herd immunity and the fact that re-introducing these things by not vaccinating could cause big outbreaks.

[Coffee Warlord]

Some people's kids have adverse reactions to vaccine. The usual side affects - high fevers, increased irritability, rashes, etc, etc, etc. Dealing with a slightly less crabby and sore infant is plenty of benefit.

And big fucking deal if a kid gets a vaccine a few months later than "normal". My pediatrician flat out told us, "As long as they get this this and this by x years / months, and these by the start of school, you're fine."

Of course, we make sure our kids make their appointments.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flounder

Yes. Because if you're exposed to a disease before you are vaccinated for it, then you're at greater risk of getting the disease.

That and there have been some issues with increased seizures.

Delaying Vaccines Increases Risks—with No Added Benefits - Scientific American

There's also a slight risk of human error with immunization. Either the doctors missing one or repeating since they're on a non-standard schedule.

[Solecismic]

I discussed this with my son's doctor when he was a baby. He told me they space them out if parents prefer, but he would only recommend that if we felt more than one shot was too traumatic. Of course, that meant more visits that included shots.

Carson is very good at throwing little barbs into the end of his statements - ones that make you think a little. The funny thing about the Trump vaccination claim was that he knew perfectly well Carson could rip him a new one. But Trump appreciated that Carson stayed in his pleasant sleepy mode.

It's a reminder that we do have two complete outsiders in this race.

Trump is a businessman. He's treating this campaign like a real-estate deal exercise. All about jockeying for position and specific rules about conduct. But he doesn't even think it's as important as real-estate. It is just practice of some sort. He reminded Rand Paul that he could talk about his appearance, but wouldn't. That was just odd.

And Carson is a doctor. So he's going to give you his knowledge in limited doses, based on what he feels you can handle. There are probably parts of the world where this type of approach would work very well in politics.

I don't consider Fiorina an outsider. She ran in California. She has studied the rules and she's good at them.

One more reminder... if you feel the need to put someone down, please do it in another item.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I discussed this with my son's doctor when he was a baby. He told me they space them out if parents prefer, but he would only recommend that if we felt more than one shot was too traumatic. Of course, that meant more visits that included shots.

Carson is very good at throwing little barbs into the end of his statements - ones that make you think a little. The funny thing about the Trump vaccination claim was that he knew perfectly well Carson could rip him a new one. But Trump appreciated that Carson stayed in his pleasant sleepy mode.

It's a reminder that we do have two complete outsiders in this race.

Trump is a businessman. He's treating this campaign like a real-estate deal exercise. All about jockeying for position and specific rules about conduct. But he doesn't even think it's as important as real-estate. It is just practice of some sort. He reminded Rand Paul that he could talk about his appearance, but wouldn't. That was just odd.

And Carson is a doctor. So he's going to give you his knowledge in limited doses, based on what he feels you can handle. There are probably parts of the world where this type of approach would work very well in politics.

I don't consider Fiorina an outsider. She ran in California. She has studied the rules and she's good at them.

One more reminder... if you feel the need to put someone down, please do it in another item.

Yes Trump is the first person I have ever seen at a debate who talks about people's positions in the polls and how great an interview his is when answering questions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sounds like he was just brought up by you and has a lot of the extreme crazy viewpoints that you do.

I am nowhere near the fan of Rand than I was of his father and think he is way too green to be president of the United States but saying he is nuts from just the 5 minutes a speaking time he had at last night's debate just means your son is rehashing his dad's talking points about Libertarian leaning candidates.

You assume too much. For example, you assume that it was his first exposure to Paul, it's not & not by a long shot. It wasn't a new conclusion for him to have reached, it was just his quicktake after enduring all but the first 15 minutes or so & I shared it since I certainly couldn't have summed up the guy any better.|

If you're butt hurt over that, well, tough fucking shit I guess.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flounder

Yes. Because if you're exposed to a disease before you are vaccinated for it, then you're at greater risk of getting the disease.

So, at birth then?

[nol]

Originally Posted by miked

I believe there is evidence that spacing it out reduces compliance. The reason the schedule is clustered is because most people won't bring their kid to the doctor every few weeks, and most don't want vaccines still going at 3.

That's it.

A doctor is gonna say that it's "fine" if the parents choose to space out the vaccines just as that doctor is going to say that it's fine if a kid occasionally chews on a Lego/some rocks/whatever else they picked up from the ground. What's the alternative, "You're awful parents and your child is in mortal danger"?

The only issue is that the people who take that easy way out are going to be the type of people who, after seeing their kid bawling for them after getting a shot, are going to be more receptive to listening to the latest scholarly research from Dr. Jenny McCarthy and deciding that one was enough.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So, at birth then?

Yes, which is why they need to get their vaccines as soon as possible.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is there scientific evidence that spacing it out is risky?

Common sense, Dutch. If you lock your car door, you're less at risk of getting carjacked. If you wait to lock your door until you're in Carson, you've been at risk of a carjacking all that time. Now, you can rationalize it with "well, I was in a better neighborhood," but decreased risk is not no risk.

It's the same thing with vaccines. Spacing it out doesn't necessarily put the recipient at greater risk of an adverse reaction (say), but it does leave the recipient exposed to the disease in question and reliant entirely upon herd immunity and the prescience of their parents not to take them someplace where they might get exposed. Maybe you think you're safe enough not giving your kid the MMR vaccine and oh hey let's go to Disneyland for his fourth birthday and...well, y'know? You can (kind of) control potential exposure for your child, but there are limits. If you take them to any kind of a large gathering, you're exposing your child to the decisions all of those OTHER parents made about THEIR children.

It's the same thing we tell teenagers when we're trying to convince them not to be horndogs: "if you engage in unprotected sex you're having sex with all of his or her former partners also." And there's some truth to both of those things.

Vaccines aren't infallible, because humans don't come off an assembly line. Some people will react adversely, some people will have compromised immune systems, and some people will end up getting exposed to a strain the vaccine didn't induce antibody creation for.

But you're much better off being vaccinated than not if you have the choice at all. Some protection is better than none, and the childhood diseases some parents are declining to vaccinate for are not simple nuisances. They can have very real, lasting, and permanent effects. The mumps can cause sterility. Whooping cough can kill a young child, or damage their lungs. Chicken pox can cause encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by panerd

My doctor is a creationist? You are definitely painting with a broad brush and clearly don't have a child that has really adverse reactions to some of the vaccines. What exactly does the science say about a kid that gets all the recommended vaccines on a different schedule than the "normal" one? No difference either? So again why is there pandering?

My doctor recommended to us (not that we asked, he suggested) spacing out immunizations for my son. We thought it odd since the same doctor didn't for our daughter, but the reason he gave was specific to my son. My son is a red-head, and in his experience they are more sensitive to the shots in general. He wasn't pandering or a moron, just being a good doctor.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

He wasn't pandering or a moron, just being a good doctor.

Hey, nice to see you around here lately.

Just to be clear, Rainmaker was saying that you're the moron and the doctor is pandering to you.

So, like I said, nice to see you around here...moron.

[Easy Mac]

There's a 6 hour Republican forum in Greenville tonight with the same candidates from the debate. Was 3 mind numbing hours somehow not enough for these people?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

My doctor recommended to us (not that we asked, he suggested) spacing out immunizations for my son. We thought it odd since the same doctor didn't for our daughter, but the reason he gave was specific to my son. My son is a red-head, and in his experience they are more sensitive to the shots in general. He wasn't pandering or a moron, just being a good doctor.

I bite my tongue hard because for 37 years I was the guy that would get pissed off when someone would say "Well you really wouldn't understand unless you have kids". And I still agree parents hide behind this excuse for a lot of things. However I think a few of the posters on here without kids are clearly ignoring what we are saying and creating their own narrative just because they think we are overprotective parents...

1) I never once said we skipped the measles, polio, or whooping cough vaccine. There are about 10 different vaccines given and some of them are for non-life threatening diseases that the doctors say don't have to all be given at once.

2) Never did I say I was scared of autism because of Jenny McCarthy etc and also never said I wasn't giving all of the vaccines available. I just wasn't giving my overractive 6 month old 3 shots and a drink at the same time when you could delay a couple of them to (oh dear lord) 9 months or 1 year. (Of course it is easier to generalize that I am scared of my kid getting a shot from the guy who takes insane stances on the racial topics and then says I can't understand because I am a white guy)

I can be an atheist, fully believe in science, and still choose to delay a vaccine because taking 4 doses at age 3 months makes my child completely miserable? I realize that is a complex situation that maybe doesn't meet the criteria of science vs creationism or global warming vs religion. (sarcasm intended on the complex part)