Coming Trump Policies

[pinchingyourballs]

lul, Fucking Dems...

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1857448532321448388

Joke will be on them when the illegal ballots are also split evenly between the candidates.

[soxfan]

I'm sure it;s just a cohencidence that the cackling cunt won states without voter id requirement but she lost all states what have voter id requirement of some sorts, hey hey.

[redietz]

World make note kewl being the sharp one.

Even given vax has lots of issues - it still doesn't justify the wholesale dismissal of whatever people feel the "msm" is. The grifters keep pushing this and it works so well. I've had the craziest convos with these people and how strongly they push back against msm and they always think they're some sorta critical thinker. Critical thinking is not blanket believing the msm is worthless.

The way crazy social media grifters have pushed that msm is always corrupt when looking back it just seems like occams razor. Just journalists thinking the vaccine is a good thing in a general sense but ever since they're seen as worthless. I encounter it all the time on right-oriented friends.

It is still look back at the msms coverage of the vax. It is endless. The disinformation campaigns have worked. Now these people just accept any and all narratives. Whether for clicks or something sinister. This country is beyond fucked.

You really are a Fucking Lunatic.

The devil, as always, is in the details. Account posts this but doesn't mention that more than half of the CNN/MSNBC/Fox advertising income in the US is from pharmaceutical firms. He doesn't mention that, for the public good, all but two countries ban pharma advertising on television. You can't not mention these things. They should be mentioned in every single discussion of these issues.

If you are arguing mRNA this and pharma that, but you do not mention these two crucial pieces of information, then you are guilty of editing out of your decision process what are arguably the two most critical pieces of information. You are being either extremely foolish or blatantly dishonest or both. How can you debate or argue these points without mentioning (1) US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma and (2) the US is one of (last I checked) two countries to allow pharma ads on television? With those two critical pieces out of the frame, the picture is irrevocably incomplete.

[jdog]

Critical thinking is not blanket believing the msm is worthless.

I agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.

US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma

I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.

[MDawg]

Stephen King says he is leaving X, calls the platform ‘too toxic’

There was also a story circulating that King was kicked off Twitter (X) by Elon for calling Musk the "First Lady of the White House" (false - but King said that was only because he didn't think of saying it).

In any case, no way King could make it at VCT if he thinks Twitter is too toxic.

[accountinquestion]

World make note kewl being the sharp one.

Even given vax has lots of issues - it still doesn't justify the wholesale dismissal of whatever people feel the "msm" is. The grifters keep pushing this and it works so well. I've had the craziest convos with these people and how strongly they push back against msm and they always think they're some sorta critical thinker. Critical thinking is not blanket believing the msm is worthless.

The way crazy social media grifters have pushed that msm is always corrupt when looking back it just seems like occams razor. Just journalists thinking the vaccine is a good thing in a general sense but ever since they're seen as worthless. I encounter it all the time on right-oriented friends.

It is still look back at the msms coverage of the vax. It is endless. The disinformation campaigns have worked. Now these people just accept any and all narratives. Whether for clicks or something sinister. This country is beyond fucked.

You really are a Fucking Lunatic.

The devil, as always, is in the details. Account posts this but doesn't mention that more than half of the CNN/MSNBC/Fox advertising income in the US is from pharmaceutical firms. He doesn't mention that, for the public good, all but two countries ban pharma advertising on television. You can't not mention these things. They should be mentioned in every single discussion of these issues.

If you are arguing mRNA this and pharma that, but you do not mention these two crucial pieces of information, then you are guilty of editing out of your decision process what are arguably the two most critical pieces of information. You are being either extremely foolish or blatantly dishonest or both. How can you debate or argue these points without mentioning (1) US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma and (2) the US is one of (last I checked) two countries to allow pharma ads on television? With those two critical pieces out of the frame, the picture is irrevocably incomplete.

It is funny how important pharma related news has been since covid. All those articles.. or wait are they covered up? Or wait maybe even if big pharma has a heavy hand in editorial decisions there is still only a tiny fraction of news relatable to pharmaceuticals.

But this isn't what I hear. Msm is just all like coverups.

Blah blah.

Foreign disinformation and influencer-grifters have done enough
on us we will never recover. IT IS FAR BETTER TO BELIEVE RUBBISH than the msm. I see this thinking daily.

But yes redietz again can't cash his check. Where's the paper ol
Boy?

[accountinquestion]

Critical thinking is not blanket believing the msm is worthless.

I agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.

US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma

I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.

I bet if we watch msm the amount of pharma ads is not anywhere near 50%.

I bet these claims were just more rubbish on some faker news site.

[mickeycrimm]

Stephen King says he is leaving X, calls the platform ‘too toxic’

There was also a story circulating that King was kicked off Twitter (X) by Elon for calling Musk the "First Lady of the White House" (false - but King said that was only because he didn't think of saying it).

In any case, no way King could make it at VCT if he thinks Twitter is too toxic.

King is toxic. He has terrible TDS and expects that no one should disagree with him. Good riddance.

[mickeycrimm]

I agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.

US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma

I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.

I bet if we watch msm the amount of pharma ads is not anywhere near 50%.

I bet these claims were just more rubbish on some faker news site.

You probably know the Jardiance song by heart.

And don’t forget oh oh oh ozempic

I hear that shit all day long.

[accountinquestion]

I agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.


I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.

I bet if we watch msm the amount of pharma ads is not anywhere near 50%.

I bet these claims were just more rubbish on some faker news site.

You probably know the Jardiance song by heart.

And don’t forget oh oh oh ozempic

I hear that shit all day long.

If I had cable I could tape a predetermined show- post it and we could bet on it. I have no idea where the # is but 50% smells like kewl talking.

[mickeycrimm]

Big pharma has a lot of politicians bought and paid for.

[mickeycrimm]

According to Wiki Big Pharma spent 4.6 billion on broadcast and cable advertising in 2020 and accounted for 75% of total ad spend.

[redietz]

According to Wiki Big Pharma spent 4.6 billion on broadcast and cable advertising in 2020 and accounted for 75% of total ad spend.

I soft-played the amounts, as I always do, so that when people actually look things up, they say, "Hey, Dietz was actually underreporting this."

But if people don't look things up, then they won't learn.

Good tactic, eh, mickey? I'm a great believer that people should invest their own time and energy in learning things.

There was a funny report regarding CNN recently. CNN was arguing against the 50% pharma ads income reporting. It turned out, for one recent year, it was "just" 47%. LOL. That was CNN's "Aha! You're wrong by 3%!" moment.

Great stuff.

[jdog]

Even anything near 50% is absolutely nuts. These companies have stupid money and I'm sure they can get just about anything done if they really want to.

[redietz]

Even anything near 50% is absolutely nuts. These companies have stupid money and I'm sure they can get just about anything done if they really want to.

I'm not going to sit here and defend RFK Jr. all day, but the pharma investments in news programming help explain much of the RFK Jr. coverage.

[accountinquestion]

Redietz lecturing about investigating things themselves is funny.
I went down a rabbit hole researching ivermectin and I believe it was Stanford. Redietz was confused at best. I wasted far too much time looking into non-existent nonsense from him.

I'd like to know this wiki link so I can track it down. I'm always happy to be wrong. 75% is a lot to say the least. It might be the news demographic is just that great for pharma? Regardless I'd still like to see the source so I can know before I change my understanding. I just spent several minutes and could not find news spending #s.

[jdog]

I went down a rabbit hole researching ivermectin

No rabbit hole necessary, what do you think of this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it.

I just spent several minutes and could not find news spending #s.

I spent a lot more time than that. Typically you can find statistical data for just about anything if you look hard enough. You can even find answers to inane and insignificant questions. You don't think it's odd that this info is not easily found?

[accountinquestion]

I went down a rabbit hole researching ivermectin

No rabbit hole necessary, what do you think of this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it.

I just spent several minutes and could not find news spending #s.

I spent a lot more time than that. Typically you can find statistical data for just about anything if you look hard enough. You can even find answers to very inane and insignificant questions. You don't think it's odd that this info is not easily found?

The article is from 21.

Redietz said something about Stanford being the golden standard of medical treatment and recommending ivermectin. This did not exist. I know there is research that is pro ivermectin. So yea going down this is definitely a rabbithole and not what I was referencing.

No, I don't think it is that odd. There are lots of stats you can't find because the numbers are not broken down to what you want. It is likely they're not reported. The ad budgets of a subset of companies for ads that are a subset of cable news ad spend. Doesn't seem odd to me at all.

[jdog]

The article is from 21.

Yes it was. There were lot of seriously ill Covid patients in late 2020 and 2021, so was a good time to do studies on this.
"Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."

If 18 international studies found positive results overall, it seems plausible Stanford might have as well. But that info does not seem to be found now? Ok fair enough, maybe red is making it up. The MSM dismissed Ivermectin as a horse de-wormer. However two scientists won a Nobel prize for their work with the drug? Pharma comes up with a very expensive drug to treat Covid relatively quickly. Ivermectin is cheap.

Connect the dots man.

[accountinquestion]

The article is from 21.

Yes it was. There were lot of seriously ill Covid patients in late 2020 and 2021, so was a good time to do studies on this.
"Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."

If 18 international studies found positive results overall, it seems plausible Stanford might have as well. But that info does not seem to be found now? Ok fair enough, maybe red is making it up. The MSM dismissed Ivermectin as a horse de-wormer. However two scientists won a Nobel prize for their work with the drug? Pharma comes up with a very expensive drug to treat Covid relatively quickly. Ivermectin is cheap.

Connect the dots man.

I've went down this before. If you want to pay me to waste my time I can do it again. Otherwise I'm not interested.

The Nobel prize for ivermectin had to do with it being an anti-parasitic. Not anti-viral. No one is claiming it isn't a great dewormer or whatever.