Are you kidding me Christie?

[penguingrrl]

Parents should have a "choice" as to whether they vaccinate? This is where you advocate "choice" Someone is clearly courting the strong fundamentalist Christian groups that advocate against vaccinating. Between this and vindictively closing one of the busiest bridges in the world I hope his 2016 hopes are finally over and he never serves public office again, fucking moron.


www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/02/christie-says-parents-should-have-choice-on-vaccinations/?_r=0

[charminglife]

He added: “It’s more important what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.

Fuck Chris Christie. 

[laurenpetro]

i hate that fucking guy.

[redheadbaker]

Every time he opens his mouth, I hate him more.

[onthemove]

But no choice in coming back from a country with Ebola, then it's mandatory quarantine even if you have no symptoms/fever.

[NewOrleans]

Parents should have a choice about putting the *entire* community at risk.

Women should not have a choice about putting their *own* bodies and economic livelihood at risk.

Yay GOP. Again.

[One Girl In All The World]

[penguingrrl]

I will add that I swear to god this man does not represent the beliefs of the vast majority of NJ residents. I know a lot of people who voted for him for two reasons.

1) His opponent (who was the incumbent) was incredibly corrupt. So corrupt that I would have had trouble holding my nose and voting for him and I've never once voted for an R candidate in my life.

2) They are Wall Streeters who mistakenly believe in his fiscal policy.

[NewOrleans]

The more I think about this "choice," the fucking angrier I get.

[NitaX]

Here's what I don't understand. We're covering a measles outbreak. Something that is far easier to catch than Ebola, and yet we're still all "Oh no big deal about vaccinations?" No. I have never understood the idea that you should pick and choose vaccinations. We're talking about diseases that had devastating and crippling effects on populations.

[jillboston]

Anti-science and anti-woman. Our GOP ladies here should really try to take over their party.

[cattledogkisses]

Feb 2, 2015 10:35:05 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Here's what I don't understand. We're covering a measles outbreak. Something that is far easier to catch than Ebola, and yet we're still all "Oh no big deal about vaccinations?" No. I have never understood the idea that you should pick and choose vaccinations. We're talking about diseases that had devastating and crippling effects on populations.

Right? People totally freaked out over a few isolated cases of Ebola, which isn't very contagious. 

But an incredibly contagious measles outbreak? Eh, no big deal. 

[leeba25]

So I should be allowed to drive drunk, right? Who cares who I'm putting at risk. Or hold my baby in my lap while I drive. IT'S MY BABY MY CHOICE!!!

[jillboston]

The parallel to the right to have carry in public just struck me. I have the right to do what I want and the potential deadly detriment to every other person in our society be damned. I think I get it now.

[mominatrix]

Did this statement come out after Obama's pro-vaccine stance?


...cuz sometimes I think that if Obama came out as pro-breathing, Christie and his ilk would come out in favor of asphyxiation.

[emilyj]

Well, if parents have a choice to vaccinate or not, then we, the responsible public, have the choice to ship them all off to the island of stupidity. Right?

[sangria]

Feb 2, 2015 10:35:05 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Here's what I don't understand. We're covering a measles outbreak. Something that is far easier to catch than Ebola, and yet we're still all "Oh no big deal about vaccinations?" No. I have never understood the idea that you should pick and choose vaccinations. We're talking about diseases that had devastating and crippling effects on populations.

Hint: It's because Ebola is something you catch from the "blacks"

Way scarier. 

[MrsAxilla]

Feb 2, 2015 10:54:47 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Did this statement come out after Obama's pro-vaccine stance?


...cuz sometimes I think that if Obama came out as pro-breathing, Christie and his ilk would come out in favor of asphyxiation.

Ding ding!  He said all of his children are vaccinated and "there is no question kids should be vaccinated.”  I think he threw in that irresponsible choice bit to separate himself from Obama.

[ECB]

Feb 2, 2015 10:54:47 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Did this statement come out after Obama's pro-vaccine stance?


...cuz sometimes I think that if Obama came out as pro-breathing, Christie and his ilk would come out in favor of asphyxiation.

seriously. It's not about what's right. It's about what's the opposite of what the other party wants.

[Velar Fricative]

This pisses me off so much.

This is not a medical decision that has no effect on the lives of others, FFS.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Feb 2, 2015 11:16:41 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Feb 2, 2015 10:54:47 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Did this statement come out after Obama's pro-vaccine stance?


...cuz sometimes I think that if Obama came out as pro-breathing, Christie and his ilk would come out in favor of asphyxiation.

Ding ding!  He said all of his children are vaccinated and "there is no question kids should be vaccinated.”  I think he threw in that irresponsible choice bit to separate himself from Obama.

Yep. This strikes me more as saying what you think you need to in order to get the nomination.

Don't get me wrong, I think its across statement. I just don't think he actually believes it.

[heyjude]

Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.

[redheadbaker]

I think he's also trying to prove his "Republican-ness" -- people accused him of helping Obama get re-elected when he praised Obama's response to Sandy just before the last election.

But, dude. This is NOT the issue to use to do that.

[cherryvalance]

Feb 2, 2015 10:54:47 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Did this statement come out after Obama's pro-vaccine stance?


...cuz sometimes I think that if Obama came out as pro-breathing, Christie and his ilk would come out in favor of asphyxiation.

Well, that's one way to solve the problem

[miniroller]

I don't think he realizes the paradox that he presents. His opinion is that this should be a parent's choice, not the government's. Um, what about physicians & the medical community as a whole who believe vaccines should be mandated?!? Shouldn't it be the position of the government to implement the position of the well-researched professionals? Just slamming my head into a wall with this douchebag's inability.

And guess what? Jenny McCarthy has proven that there is definitely a portion of this country's society who don't care about educational background or actual research/ FACTS!! They just listen to people they 'like'. I wish he'd disappear or move to a different continent. (Thinkin of you there, Canadians;))

[sam19]

Feb 2, 2015 11:47:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.

I see two factions of anti vaxxers. The hippie liberals and fundie evangelical conservatives. Most anti vaxxers I know fall into the latter category due to where I live.

[NewOrleans]

Feb 2, 2015 11:47:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.

Not so sure about that.  I hypothesize they're evenly divided between religious batshitcrazies denying science and liberal dumbfucks relying on "mommy instincts."

[heyjude]

This is probably my nor cal bias speaking. Carry on.

[msmerymac]

Feb 2, 2015 11:47:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.

Much like home birth and homeschooling, I think there's a contingent on both sides. And actually, I imagine anti-vaxxers DO homeschool at a higher rate, either because they live some place without philosophical objections or because of an overall distrust of government or because their children are special snowflakes. 

I also think "parents' choice" is a more conservative philosophy, like other rugged independent bootstrappy stuff. Down with the nanny state and thought police!

[ESF]

Feb 2, 2015 12:12:56 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Feb 2, 2015 11:47:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.

Not so sure about that.  I hypothesize they're evenly divided between religious batshitcrazies denying science and liberal dumbfucks relying on "mommy instincts."

I think the anti-vax world is where you have gone so far to the extreme that you bump up against the other side.

I don't think he was pandering for votes. The antivaxxers are paranoid delusional nut jobs. They are not a voting block.  Christie is smart enough to know this.

If I'm being honest, this issue is a hard one.  I think the reaction to Christie may be somewhat over the top. I love vaccines as much as the next person, but what exactly was Christie supposed to say here?  If some politician got up there and said, "yes, the government has the authority to round up its citizens and those visiting the country, and forcibly inject whatever drugs it deems necessary into those people's bodies," most sane people would be horrified. It's not that I don't think the government should do more to make sure people are vaccinated, or that I don't trust what science and doctors tells me.  It's that I don't trust that the government will always be relying on the best science or always be most motivated by public interest. Nor do most voters.

So sure, in this case, mandatory vaccines do reflect both the best science and the best public interest.  But somewhere, a politician who supports mandatory vaccinations will ultimately have to answer to the public about what they deem the appropriate scope of executive power.  So it's easier to say it's a choice to avoid that very, very difficult question.