If RFK, Jr. sells Trump, and Trump tells GOP members of Congress he likes it, how long do you think it will take? What’s their record on bucking him?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
National Advertisers and 55+ radio audiences
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
Lotta "ifs" in what you're saying. So far, it's all democrats and independents.
AFAIK, there is no house version of the bill. Both houses would have to pass it for it to go to the white house.
So politics is now a team sport? Sigh.
I've never once asked my doctor about any medicine I've seen or heard an ad for, but I'm also not in the 55+ demo either. I also can't stand the singing Jardiance commercials.
Two trains, parallel tracks, BigA:
And unlike major motion pictures, which are hits or flops on opening weekends, legislation can and does take months to build among members, usually involving a few I'll back your this if you'll back my that deals.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Will you accept a negative number as an answer, Mike?
Of course RFK Jr. will lobby Trump. And Trump will then attempt to dictate the passage of same, and depending on how successful the opponents of the bill are in swaying enough votes back to "no" are, this may still be an uphill battle.
The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate know damn well that seniors -- who, let's face it, are a huge demo in terms of pharma ads -- are reliable voters. The whole crisis about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is turning into "put the toothpaste back into the tube" because both AARP and individual constituents are saying "hands off". When the opposition comes from a wider scope than just "Big Pharma" they start counting votes lost in the next election against what Trump and RFK Jr. want.
If anything, this may turn a few Democratic members of both houses of Congress against Bernie.
From your linked article:
The president is trying to lower drug prices, not ban their advertising.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I see the concept of "cherry picking" parts of articles, while ignoring the first couple of paragraphs where the basic story is told, is still alive and well.
Yes, they're talking about RFK, not the president. The administration isn't always the same thing as the president.
I'm sorry. Who is this and what have you done with @TheBigA ?
Name the cabinet members who have proposed publicly something Trump himself didn't like and were cabinet members a week later.
I haven't seen anything where he has signed on to this campaign. Obviously the congress hasn't either.
You have Bernie Sanders and RFK Jr. That's about it.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
And if the two differ in any substantive way, it could still get hung up in reconciliation.
(I got an "A" in my ninth grade civics class, with a teacher -- Russell Cameron Gates-- who was honored multiple times by the Ventura Unified School District as "teacher of the year" for ignoring the textbook and simply teaching us about government, from local all the way up to Washington. So never underestimate my knowledge on things like this.)
Let me get back to disclaimers, if I may.
Seems to me this might be a good time for a compromise vote (DJT loves negotiation) where pharmaceutical ads aren't banned, but are made to be presented in a more serious way. No more people dancing around while the announcer, in a sped-up monotone, talks about the possibility of headache, diarrhea, vomiting, dizziness or, "If death occurs, see your doctor."
Right now it's the wild west when it comes to pharmaceutical ad production.
My point is that without the threat of something as extreme as a complete ban, there's little chance of doing anything about cleaning up those disclaimers.
Seems to me this might be a good time for a compromise vote (DJT loves negotiation) where pharmaceutical ads aren't banned, but are made to be presented in a more serious way. No more people dancing around while the announcer, in a sped-up monotone, talks about the possibility of headache, diarrhea, vomiting, dizziness or, "If death occurs, see your doctor."
Right now it's the wild west when it comes to pharmaceutical ad production.
My point is that without the threat of something as extreme as a complete ban, there's little chance of doing anything about cleaning up those disclaimers.
We'll be right back to our discussion after this word from Chantix:
Here are the rules. How would you change them?
The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP)
RFK doesn't need congress to change the rules.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
idDJT only likes negotiations where he comes out the winner. Any "compromise" is guaranteed to meet with his disapproval.
As BigA just showed you, that was pure rhetoric with no basis in fact.
Except that we are not in an era where those compromises have the desired effect on the outcome. One need only look at Trump vs. ABC News as an example.
YES!! That's almost not an exaggeration. 😂