|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 27, 2020 7:47:19 GMT -6
Maybe a couple of MAC championships in BB and FB and a presidential election with Superman running against Batman? Although we seem to be trying that last one this year without notable success.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 9:19:00 GMT -6
Or you can get on CNN/MSNBC and watch them completely ignore anything that could hurt Biden's chances. Or see who's been suspended today from their networks. I think that is an exaggeration, and they compare relatively well. There are a few notable examples of that. I watch all three cable networks for part of my typical evening news fix. I am not an addict exactly but at least a couple of nights a week and always when there is a big breaking story.
The Hunter Biden story is the big negative that is not covered, but as a news story FOX and of course the Post give it far more attention than it deserves, and you have to note that the more reputable conservative sources like the WSJ have not taken it on to the same degree which is red flag.
Part of lack of coverage is the poor management of the story and the Rudy factor. He has low objective credibility as a shady crony with questionable ties to foreign sources, if not foreign agents of disinformation.
Part of the issue is also that the story is just NOT backed up by linkage to the candidate. No real smoking gun. Plus the Trump DOJ which has hardly been non partisan is not running with this as the Obama DOJ did with Hillary's emails. Both factors mean journalists seeing the timing and the sourcing of the story really should be cautious about making it a big story. Even FOX on their news side of the network as opposed to the opinion side have not made it all that big. I respect the FOX content before 7, but when the opinion side comes on I have issues.
Here's the major gripe I have with FOX in watching an evening's coverage. FOX has extremely little about what is a major news story in the virus. Hospitals are getting overrun, cases are up, admissions are up, deaths are going up (lagging). This is a serious natural disaster. Ignoring the impact there is a lot different and more serious than ignoring Hunter Biden.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 9:21:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 28, 2020 10:38:31 GMT -6
Your link is to the New York Times, which is hardly a bastion of impartiality. I don't have an account, so it won't let me read it. An interesting thing about the link is that if you don't have an account, you have time to read the headline before a notice pops up that blocks the content. As we all know, the headline doesn't always quiiiiiiiiiiiite match the content, so you can walk away with the wrong impression if you don't read the story. I'm sure that's completely unintentional. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 28, 2020 10:44:17 GMT -6
Or you can get on CNN/MSNBC and watch them completely ignore anything that could hurt Biden's chances. Or see who's been suspended today from their networks. I think that is an exaggeration, and they compare relatively well. There are a few notable examples of that. I watch all three cable networks for part of my typical evening news fix. I am not an addict exactly but at least a couple of nights a week and always when there is a big breaking story.
The Hunter Biden story is the big negative that is not covered, but as a news story FOX and of course the Post give it far more attention than it deserves, and you have to note that the more reputable conservative sources like the WSJ have not taken it on to the same degree which is red flag.
Part of lack of coverage is the poor management of the story and the Rudy factor. He has low objective credibility as a shady crony with questionable ties to foreign sources, if not foreign agents of disinformation.
Part of the issue is also that the story is just NOT backed up by linkage to the candidate. No real smoking gun. Plus the Trump DOJ which has hardly been non partisan is not running with this as the Obama DOJ did with Hillary's emails. Both factors mean journalists seeing the timing and the sourcing of the story really should be cautious about making it a big story. Even FOX on their news side of the network as opposed to the opinion side have not made it all that big. I respect the FOX content before 7, but when the opinion side comes on I have issues.
Here's the major gripe I have with FOX in watching an evening's coverage. FOX has extremely little about what is a major news story in the virus. Hospitals are getting overrun, cases are up, admissions are up, deaths are going up (lagging). This is a serious natural disaster. Ignoring the impact there is a lot different and more serious than ignoring Hunter Biden.
So you think the other networks are justified in not mentioning the story at all? That NPR declared that it is not to be mentioned? That Facebook and Twitter are blocking it? Iranian propaganda is allowed on Twitter, but not this story. There are emails and texts that, at the very least, deserve to be looked into, if nothing else to exonerate Biden of wrongdoing. The FBI has had this laptop for almost a year, and did nothing. If Trump was the one doing this, it would be covered 24/7 by at least 5 networks. Your idea that it's not a story because those nets aren't covering it is self-serving crap. They're not covering it because they hate Trump, and will do anything to get rid of him. Even influence the election. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 12:34:50 GMT -6
The Hunter Biden story is the big negative that is not covered, but as a news story FOX and of course the Post give it far more attention than it deserves, and you have to note that the more reputable conservative sources like the WSJ have not taken it on to the same degree which is red flag.
Part of lack of coverage is the poor management of the story and the Rudy factor. He has low objective credibility as a shady crony with questionable ties to foreign sources, if not foreign agents of disinformation.
Part of the issue is also that the story is just NOT backed up by linkage to the candidate. No real smoking gun. Plus the Trump DOJ which has hardly been non partisan is not running with this as the Obama DOJ did with Hillary's emails.
So you think the other networks are justified in not mentioning the story at all? That NPR declared that it is not to be mentioned? That Facebook and Twitter are blocking it? There are emails and texts that, at the very least, deserve to be looked into, if nothing else to exonerate Biden of wrongdoing. The FBI has had this laptop for almost a year, and did nothing. I think the initial media response to treat these revelations about Hunter Biden as suspect and not very relevant was quite reasonable.
After a week I don't see why they would want to worry about exonerating the ex-VP when there isn't anything there that seems to be very serious wrongdoing.
Yes as a journalist I'd investigate and I bet good reporters are actually investigating the story. That would not mean rushing to press or to the airwaves with the allegations made before that investigation takes place. THAT seems to be the case with a media predisposed to publish negative information.
That a Hunter Biden associate claims to have some evidence, but won't release it, is not very convincing. Especially because what is there publicly is about Hunter Biden and there just isn't much at all to suggest the candidate is guilty of any wrongdoing.
That the FBI had the laptop for a year is not exactly evidence of media bias, or FBI bias. To say that is to ignore that Trump and Barr had to know this, Rudy is their man. Why would Trump and Barr not insure action was taken is a better question. That Trump rails about his FBI and DOJ not taking formal action it suggests he wanted action just before the election, not a year ago. I am suspicious that like Hillary and her emails, it would be found no criminal prosecution was really appropriate a year ago.
Assume for the sake of argument that the ex-VP met with his son's business associates when he had no government power and was not even a candidate. This would mean of course that Joe Biden recently may have been wrong to say he had no knowledge of his sons business dealings. That would be his sin. (Or may have not remembered an insignificant event....) But, then whichever is true there, it would NOT mean that he had actually done anything as part of a corrupt deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 12:39:37 GMT -6
There are emails and texts that, at the very least, deserve to be looked into, if nothing else to exonerate Biden of wrongdoing. The FBI has had this laptop for almost a year, and did nothing. Not clear what crime the FBI was supposed to act on, or what actual substantive wrong you think was done.
If on the basis of these allegations you are ready to assume Joe met with the Hunter people it was not a crime. If you assume that and also consider Joe's statement denying it all that damning about his character I really have no idea how you give Trump a pass on his involvement in family business dealings and his many claims that he has falsely made or where he denies knowledge and later turns out provably to have been misrepresenting something.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 28, 2020 20:08:44 GMT -6
Well some are going to have to eat a little crow.. Trump said we were going to have a vaccine by November and that now looks to be true. The key question is does it work and will it kill you... My mom has a scientist friend who works at a major Drug maker and she told my mom to never take the first Vaccine if you had a choice.. So take that for what you will.. She is legit Torrie Arens Linkden |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 20:31:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 20:45:49 GMT -6
There is something to that theory about the first vaccine. But less true for those who have a high risk of mortality.
Or for extremely infectious disease. We have a virus here that has a pretty well defined high risk group, and maybe higher than average potential to spread in some environments. So.
Would not rush the kids out to get it I supposd, but even if only 30-50% effective, get grandma out to get it. Especially if she may spend any time in nursing home care or long term care.
We won't know for a year which vaccine is best, I sure wouldn't wait that long.
And if you are a care giver or have a lot of contact with people, it's important.
Wearing masks probably more urgent, and some won't do that. So Fauci is probably right we're in trouble another year.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 29, 2020 1:03:44 GMT -6
I don't know he might of said more doses at some point I don't follow any of the political stuff near as closely as you guys do. I know what I heard him say and that was a vaccine would be ready in November. Critics then said January at the earliest and others said spring more likely. I never thought he meant a vaccine available to everyone there are always shortages of everything at the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 29, 2020 1:14:31 GMT -6
There is something to that theory about the first vaccine. But less true for those who have a high risk of mortality. Or for extremely infectious disease. We have a virus here that has a pretty well defined high risk group, and maybe higher than average potential to spread in some environments. So. Would not rush the kids out to get it I supposd, but even if only 30-50% effective, get grandma out to get it. Especially if she may spend any time in nursing home care or long term care. We won't know for a year which vaccine is best, I sure wouldn't wait that long. And if you are a care giver or have a lot of contact with people, it's important. Wearing masks probably more urgent, and some won't do that. So Fauci is probably right we're in trouble another year. I am not an anti vaxer but I will hold off with my kids for sure. I have never had a flu shot so I doubt I ever get a covid shot. Not because I'm against it but its just another thing to do that I do not have time for. Now if something does not change and it continues to look bleak I may quickly change my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 29, 2020 7:55:00 GMT -6
Getting vaccinated is just like mask wearing. It does protect you more than a mask, but it is mostly to prevent you from spreading the disease too. Not going with the first vaccine out is mostly because there will be range of effectiveness and different risks slightly with each vaccine. It's good if the information is there , but we will be unlikely to have information to make an informed choice of which vaccines are best until next year.
The low risk for kids probably means you don't need to hurry as long as no risk factors for the kids. They should stay masked around grandparents and older acquaintances though. They could be asymptomatic and spread the virus. And that whole new ethic of mask wearing could be required for a year anyway until the vaccine is widespread and virus so rare it is not easily spread.
You were probably optimistic about that November vaccine anyway.
It looks like there will not be much if any crow eating about the November vaccine date being met.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 29, 2020 8:54:46 GMT -6
Getting vaccinated is just like mask wearing. It does protect you more than a mask, but it is mostly to prevent you from spreading the disease too. Not going with the first vaccine out is mostly because there will be range of effectiveness and different risks slightly with each vaccine. It's good if the information is there , but we will be unlikely to have information to make an informed choice of which vaccines are best until next year.
The low risk for kids probably means you don't need to hurry as long as no risk factors for the kids. They should stay masked around grandparents and older acquaintances though. They could be asymptomatic and spread the virus. And that whole new ethic of mask wearing could be required for a year anyway until the vaccine is widespread and virus so rare it is not easily spread.
You were probably optimistic about that November vaccine anyway.
It looks like there will not be much if any crow eating about the November vaccine date being met.
I was not optimistic about the vaccine I figured it would be later. All I am saying is the guy said there would be a vaccine in November and there will be.. He was not talking out his ass this time
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 29, 2020 9:17:50 GMT -6
I don't see how you can be sure they even make it late November.
When it comes to Trump I don't agree about giving him much due on the vaccine prediction. We did do a good job getting it going, but it is talking out his ass if he was giving people the idea it would be available to almost all the people he was talking to and making it sound a sure thing and a game changer in November. I just saw Trump say yesterday that all the talk about Covid will end November 3rd. And that is sadly not close to being true. We'll very likely see accelerating totals of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through into January. That would mean a lot of news talk. Even FOX would mention it after the election, whoever wins. So there will be talk about Covid after November 3. It is not a made up story and not going away this year. |
|
