What should Biden do after he wins? (2 Viewers)

[Vassago]

Tucker Carlson is about the fauxist of the faux on Faux News. Besides, nothing to worry about right? Trump says he'll win.

 

[Steve R.]

There is an old saying, that even a broken clock can be "right" twice a day. Tucker Carlson may be "right". Corporations and people routinely release information for manipulative purposes, one being that it benefits them. Tucker is simply stringing together a series of facts from which one can speculate. Nothing wrong with that.

You may believe Fox News not to be reputable. But consider this, supposedly reputable media, such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and a slew of professional pollsters who allegedly rigorously applied "science" were totally wrong once again on their reporting. The projected "Blue Wave" being "sold" by the media and pollsters was an illusion based on mass hysteria. Shouldn't they be condemned for "selling" a false narrative?

Do you have any reason to claim that what Tucker is implying is somehow wrong?

 

[moke123]

Do you have any reason to claim that what Tucker is implying is somehow wrong?

It has been implied that trump raped a 12 year old. Do you have any reason to claim thats wrong?

 

[Steve R.]

You're bottom dwelling. Then there are Biden's sexual assault charges. This tit-tat can go on forever.
You don't like Tucker Carlson and Fox News, so you denigrate anything they have to say with nonsensical comments that have nothing to do with proving or disproving what Carlson or Fox News are stating. Of course you are free not to like a particular news person and/or network, but throwing non-nonsensical "mud" doesn't help your case. So what insight do you have on why Pfizer released the vaccine news till after the election?

A very legitimate question, concerning the outcome of the election. Many people have that question. @Jon posed that question on this forum and I was responding to it. So why are you not furthering the discussion? You are really impressing the readers here with your in-depth insight (sarcasm),

 

[Pat Hartman]

When leftists have no facts, they resort to name calling and innuendo. Look at Adam Schiff. We should call him "Mr. Innuendo". That was a low blow even for you moke.

 

[moke123]

Everything is a conspiracy to make trump look bad.

 

[Vassago]

There is an old saying, that even a broken clock can be "right" twice a day. Tucker Carlson may be "right". Corporations and people routinely release information for manipulative purposes, one being that it benefits them. Tucker is simply stringing together a series of facts from which one can speculate. Nothing wrong with that.

You may believe Fox News not to be reputable. But consider this, supposedly reputable media, such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and a slew of professional pollsters who allegedly rigorously applied "science" were totally wrong once again on their reporting. The projected "Blue Wave" being "sold" by the media and pollsters was an illusion based on mass hysteria. Shouldn't they be condemned for "selling" a false narrative?

You mean like Faux News being the first to call the election for Biden or their polls that routinely showed the same? I think they are all crap. I find him especially nauseating to listen to or watch. Bias news is not news, no matter who it is.

Don't get me wrong, I check them all really. The middle is usually close to the truth. I like smaller independent organizations better for my news. Opinion pieces like the crap he writes are just...

Everything is a conspiracy to make trump look bad.

He does that for himself. He don't need any help.

Neither does Biden.

Why aren't more people outraged that both candidates have been accused of these things? More importantly, why are people defending them or ignoring it?

 

[Steve R.]

Tucker Carlson is about the fauxist of the faux on Faux News. Besides, nothing to worry about right? Trump says he'll win.

In response to your post #67, I am repeating what you wrote in post #61. Tucker speculates about why the news of the Covid-19 vaccine was released after the election. Considering, that this news would have a major impact on the outcome of the election, one would think that this topic would be of interest. Yet it seems that you and @moke123 are more concerned with irrelevant haughty off-topic smearing that contributes nothing.

 

[moke123]

From what I recall about the trials the efficacy analysis is done by an independant and external committee so it is likely that Pfizer didn't have that information prior to the election. I'm sure Pfizer wouldn't sit on that kind of news. What obligation does Pfizer have to help anyone get elected?

 

[moke123]

I like smaller independent organizations better for my news.

I often like to verify stuff by checking local newspapers who are closer to the subject matter.

 

[Vassago]

I'm not surprised about the lack of response that people aren't outraged about our choices. That people can actual defend them and vote for them. The crickets are a tell.

are more concerned with irrelevant haughty off-topic smearing that contributes nothing.

You mean like all the speculation on some sort of hundreds of thousands of vote election fraud?

I don't think it contributes nothing. I think taking what someone bias says with a grain of salt is an important note to make. Anything he puts out is more like a drama show than actual news. The confirmation bias is strong in him.

 

[moke123]

The whistleblowers are terrifying

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1327038586819145732

 

[Vassago]

The whistleblowers are terrifying

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1327038586819145732

Tucker would say that this is clear evidence of fraud. Definitely terrifying.

 

[Steve R.]

@Jon posted this valid question. Seems that this would be something worth investigating.

Do you think Pfizer deliberately released the Covid vaccine information after the election for political reasons, preventing Trump from benefiting from a surge of excitement and feely good before Nov 3rd?

I responded later that day:

Good question. See my post: Election Do-Over!!!

Tucker Carlson, reviewed that concern:

Eventually someone would report. Here Tucker Carlson's take, this is an abbreviated version:

Instead of following-up on the question of whether Pfizer was playing political games or not, your responded with an attack on Carlson and Fox News.

Tucker Carlson is about the fauxist of the faux on Faux News. Besides, nothing to worry about right? Trump says he'll win.

Of course your are free to make those comments. But that does not further the discussion of the legtimate question on whether Pfizer was or was not playing political games. Apparantly you have no concern that a major corporation may have taken an unethical action to influence the US election process. If true, people should be outraged. Instead of making a contribution by following-up on the issue, you seem to be consumed with attacking the "messenger" (Carlson). There is nothing from stopping you in creating a "Tucker Carlson" is scum thread should you desire.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Tucker must be doing something right, he's constantly under attack by the lame stream media. Look under your bed tonight there's a new boogie man in town

 

[moke123]

I'd be more concerned that Pfizer was playing a financial game by cashing out the same day as the announcement. Is pfizer prohibited from playing political games? Maybe they didn't want trump to try to claim credit for their work. They could just as easily donate millions to whoever they want. Most of Bidens votes were mailed in well before 11/3. Would it really have made a difference?

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'd be more concerned that Pfizer was playing a financial game by cashing out the same day as the announcement. Is pfizer prohibited from playing political games? Maybe they didn't want trump to try to claim credit for their work. They could just as easily donate millions to whoever they want. Most of Bidens votes were mailed in well before 11/3. Would it really have made a difference?

Yeah, that was done on the news that Biden won. Also watch out for the shenanigans the dems play with distribution. They are already saying who will and who won't be getting first crack at the vaccine. Red states like Florida might be punished. Blue states like Calif probably will get it first.

 

[Jon]

Most of Bidens votes were mailed in well before 11/3. Would it really have made a difference?

Two things. Firstly, most is vague and can mean just 51% of the Dem votes. With a close election, a small difference in voting pattern can make the difference. Secondly, you are operating from hindsight. If it was a political decision by Pfizer, it was made before any result was given and so no one can say if it would not have decided the election because they didn't know what the outcome was going to be.

Maybe they didn't want trump to try to claim credit for their work.

Perhaps because they wanted Biden to be in power.

Ultimately, when something has been worked on for 160+ days and the timing of releasing great news is literally a few days after an election, it could be chance. But it does release a certain odour of suspicion. Whether or not it is the CEO of Pzifer, or some of the scientists doing a go=slow on some aspects of the work, who knows. With many people in the machine, it only takes one of those critical to getting the data to slow it down and cause a bottleneck.

 

[moke123]

As I previously stated Pfizer likely did not have the info before the election. The efficacy study is done by an external group. I would imagine thats done to keep them honest.

heres a quote from their announcement:

NEW YORK & MAINZ, GERMANY--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced their mRNA-based vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, against SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated evidence of efficacy against COVID-19 in participants without prior evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on the first interim efficacy analysis conducted on November 8, 2020 by an external, independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) from the Phase 3 clinical study.

key quote - "based on the first interim efficacy analysis conducted on November 8, 2020"
They announced it the following day.

 

[moke123]

Two things. Firstly, most is vague and can mean just 51% of the Dem votes. With a close election, a small difference in voting pattern can make the difference. Secondly, you are operating from hindsight. If it was a political decision by Pfizer, it was made before any result was given and so no one can say if it would not have decided the election because they didn't know what the outcome was going to be.

The only one who was saying there would be a vaccine by election day was trump. Everyone else was saying mid-november or later.
You may also be assigning more weight to the idea that an announced vaccine would have made a difference to the people who voted against trump.

There were @150,000,000 votes cast. 100,000,000 million of those were early votes. Thats 2/3rds.