It has been implied that trump raped a 12 year old. Do you have any reason to claim thats wrong?Do you have any reason to claim that what Tucker is implying is somehow wrong?
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.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?
He does that for himself. He don't need any help.Everything is a conspiracy to make trump look bad.
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.Tucker Carlson is about the fauxist of the faux on Faux News. Besides, nothing to worry about right? Trump says he'll win.
I often like to verify stuff by checking local newspapers who are closer to the subject matter.I like smaller independent organizations better for my news.
You mean like all the speculation on some sort of hundreds of thousands of vote election fraud?are more concerned with irrelevant haughty off-topic smearing that contributes nothing.
Tucker would say that this is clear evidence of fraud. Definitely terrifying.The whistleblowers are terrifying
I responded later that day: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?
Tucker Carlson, reviewed that concern:Good question. See my post: Election Do-Over!!!
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.Eventually someone would report. Here Tucker Carlson's take, this is an abbreviated version:
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.Tucker Carlson is about the fauxist of the faux on Faux News. Besides, nothing to worry about right? Trump says he'll win.
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.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?
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.Most of Bidens votes were mailed in well before 11/3. Would it really have made a difference?
Perhaps because they wanted Biden to be in power.Maybe they didn't want trump to try to claim credit for their work.
key quote - "based on the first interim efficacy analysis conducted on November 8, 2020"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.
The only one who was saying there would be a vaccine by election day was trump. Everyone else was saying mid-november or later.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.