2020 election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,753
4,051
743
Or have we just decided that no matter the efficacy, we're releasing vaccines into the general public in three weeks?
Trump needs to claim he had the vaccine up and running before the election. He has been pushing that angle for a few weeks. In reality it isn't feasible at this time. Trump is playing politics with the vaccine. Everyone who ISN'T up for election is saying early next year when a reliable vaccine will be ready and mass immunizations mid 2021.

There is about 0 chance of going from an approval out of 100's of candidates...mass production of said approved vaccine, distribution of vaccine and mass public vaccinations in the next 3 weeks. Now, that doesn't mean that Trump won't push something through and people will be taking shots, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the person taking what ever will be in that vial.
I'm pretty sure Trump was only saying what he had been told and that many others had said previously. that there was the potential for a vaccine to be ready by October. He isn't hinging his reelection on a vaccine. Trust me

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,465
1,996
1,743
Oklahoma City
Unnamed sources are used a lot. I don’t blame them with the way Trump and his followers crucify anyone in their way. At least it was identified as a university president. But, I guess since it didn’t come from Breitbart some won’t trust it. Geez.
No thoughtful person should ever listen to "unnamed" because no one knows who he is or even if he exists at all..
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,753
4,051
743
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...-return-to-play-2020-college-football-season/

A Big Ten university president flatly denied the White House's claims to NBC News.

"President Trump had nothing to do with our decision and did not impact the deliberations," that school president told NBC's Peter Alexander. "In fact, when his name came up, it was a negative because no one wanted this to be political."
Honestly though, I thought the Big 10 Commissioner/office was the sticking point in another vote. And Trump called the commissioner, not the presidents, so how does this president know he had nothing truly to do with the conference allowing the new vote?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,753
4,051
743
Was Joe married at the time? How about Jill? FoxNews Ukraine stories about Joe Biden have been proven false. If there was any truth why didn’t a Republican controlled House &/or Senate investigate? Convenient now that he announces for Pres that Rudy uses a Ukrainian in bed w Russian Oligarchs to “investigate.” And the Senate led by a GOP Senator w ties to Russia is now investigating. Oh and Trump wasn’t just accused he had charges brought and was impeached.
Jill was married. Joe wrecked her car and then her husband found out.
Hmm, never heard this story.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,753
4,051
743
Unblocking is not an endorsement.

She was part of the demon sex lady’s “press conference.” Seems legit.

It wasn’t a complete ban. It restricted use to hospitalized patients. It was to keep people from stockpiling it unnecessarily. Doctors and pharmacists agreed with the measure.

Seriously, could you please stop spamming the boards with these extreme, non-credible, conspiracy theory sources? ugh.
You tell me that no states banned doctors from prescribing it for Covid?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Feb 7, 2007
15,796
16,869
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Unnamed sources are used a lot. I don’t blame them with the way Trump and his followers crucify anyone in their way. At least it was identified as a university president. But, I guess since it didn’t come from Breitbart some won’t trust it. Geez.
To see someone appear to defend news stories using unnamed sources as their only evidence, and then put down Breitbart in the same paragraph....it's just so perfectly ironic. Surely if you think about it, you too will see the humor here. At least I hope so.
 

PanhandleCowboy

Point Guard
A/V Subscriber
Jun 22, 2006
5,048
3,629
1,743
Not Close Enough to Stillwater
Journalists Should Stop Cleaning Up After Biden

https://www.yahoo.com/news/journalists-stop-cleaning-biden-170053629.html

All political candidates make mistakes. They have to retract hasty, ill-considered statements. They find that the position they took to win their primaries is inconvenient afterward, and try to explain it away. For a lucky few candidates, the embarrassment is mitigated by the assistance of journalists who accept the explanations or, even better, don’t ask for them in the first place.

Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, is in that enviable position. Whenever he makes a political mess, he is blessed with people, many of them not in his employ, who will clean it up for him.

In a March 15 debate with Senator Bernie Sanders, Biden sounded favorable toward banning fracking, a stand that could cost him votes in crucial states such as Pennsylvania. When President Donald Trump raised the issue, Ellen Knickmeyer and Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press reported that Trump was distorting Biden’s views. They explained that Biden had “misstated his fracking policy” in that debate but “otherwise been consistent on his middle-of-the-road position.”

He has? During a debate in July 2019, Dana Bash of CNN asked him “to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?” He responded: “No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated.” At a campaign stop two months later, he told an environmental activist: “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We're going to end fossil fuel.” The activist, Rebecca Beaulieu, told me in an email that she took Biden’s answer to include all fracking.

It’s true that he has also sometimes poured cold water on the idea of a ban. Just days before talking to Beaulieu, he said a national ban could not pass Congress. Having won the nomination, he is more emphatic. This August, he said, “I am not banning fracking no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me.” (He said that, not coincidentally, in Pittsburgh.)

Reviewing this record, Amber Phillips reported in the Washington Post that Trump has twisted Biden’s words, even while conceding that Biden has been “more straightforward” about opposing a ban since winning the Democratic nomination. The truth is that Biden has been inconsistent on this question, and Trump is within his rights to take political advantage of the fact.

Reporters have also stepped forward to defend Biden from the accusation that he wants to confiscate guns. Reid Epstein dinged the president’s son Eric Trump in the New York Times for making that claim at the Republican convention. Reporters have been especially exercised by claims that Biden is “coming for” Americans’ guns.

Biden himself has not always minded that phrase. In August 2019, Anderson Cooper raised the issue of confiscating assault weapons in a CNN interview of Biden. Cooper said that the U.S. had so many assault weapons that the ban on new ones that the U.S. maintained for a decade had not had much effect. He mentioned “gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns” — and Biden interjected: “Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal, period.” After a follow-up, Biden conceded only that he didn’t think he could legally have law enforcement seize assault weapons from their owners by “walking into their home” and “going through their gun cabinet.”

The plan you’ll find on Biden’s campaign website doesn’t say anything about forcing the sale of existing assault weapons, although it would, among other things, make owners pay $200 to keep them. But if Biden was just flubbing his own position, it wasn’t the only time he has done so. In March, Biden had a testy and well publicized exchange with a gun-rights supporter, in the course of which he said, “We’ll take your AR-14s away.” He probably meant to refer to AR-15s.

This protective impulse toward Biden on the part of the press is sure to express itself in all kinds of ways as the campaign goes on. In early September, the candidate said he would raise the corporate tax rate “on Day 1” of his presidency. A few journalists noted that Biden would not have the power to make good on that promise, just as commentators note the many occasions when Trump engages in similar bluster. MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle pushed back on this criticism, saying Biden was just voicing “a sentiment” and that Trump often makes equally empty promises.

When people want to dismiss the importance of Trump’s inaccuracies, they sometimes say he should be taken seriously but not literally. But part of the press’s job is to report when candidates are departing from the literal truth. It should not be to protect a candidate from the voters, or from himself.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a senior editor at National Review, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and contributor to CBS News.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,580
1,897
1,743
46
DFW