Political Test

[Pat Mustard]

Well I'd believe the anti-vaxxer rhetoric is closer to her position than her refutation, especially considering that her refutation tries to say she is not anti-vaxxer without repudiatung her earlier comments nor without showing that she disagrees with the anti-vaxxer movement. It's a refutation in the vein of the apologetic non-apology, you know the kind "I'm sorry my comments caused some people to be offended. I hope they can get over it."

So fine, go on believing the non-climb back if you will. The substance of her words give the lie to her subsequent claims.

She said she's in favor of vaccinations. The rumors started because of a misinterpretation that she later cleared up. You can go on believing whatever you want though. Have fun. I don't really care what you think because you are certainly not convincing.

Wrong. If you read the two articles yo'd see that the backlash (emphatically not rumours,
rumors don't start from fact) started because she publically said, wrote and tweeted anti-vaxxer propoganda and dog whistle terms, and continued in the same vein even after she said she wasn't anti-vaxxer. If you accept her word, using thecsame criteria you have to accept Trump's word that he's not racist. Otherwise you're engaging in hypocritical doublethink. Now, is Trump a racist or not?