Swordfish Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: Well fuck, then in that case let's get rid of the CDC, NASA, the EPA, and any other government that conducts research. I'm listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Swordfish said: I'm listening. Lisenting to wut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 The discussion on what terms to use and not to use regarding immigrants reminded me of a video I watched a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: Lisenting to wut? Voices. So many voices...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 15 minutes ago, Corvinus said: The discussion on what terms to use and not to use regarding immigrants reminded me of a video I watched a few days ago. That video is stupid. It totally ignores the conservative outrage machine. I mean, they are the people who flip the fuck out that Starbucks doesn't put baby jesus on their cups. He's basically saying decent people need to turn their backs on all they stand for and turn into shitty despicable conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Swordfish said: Voices. So many voices...... So should we defund the NIH? Stop paying to improve roads? How about we just defund the government altogether? Your point was exactly wut, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, Tempra said: Democrats will wring their hands and moan about how ultra right wing Gorsuch is but they'll confirm him. Their best play is prevent Republicans from nuking the filibuster and hope they retake the Senate in 2018. That's a pretty shitty play given the make up of the 2018 race, but I tend to agree; nuking the filibuster over this is probably unwise strategically given that Gorsuch is a fairly well-respected guy in most circles. As much as my desire for revenge and no appeasement is, chances are good that the wise thing is to actually act like a grown up in the room in some places. The flip side to this is that will absolutely enrage the progressives, which will mean a much less effective campaign in 2018 as the typical democrat/progressive infighting and ideological purity will reign supreme. For that reason, it may be a better idea to unite on the no appeasement platform and simply have everyone fight, no matter what, on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 24 minutes ago, Tempra said: Democrats will wring their hands and moan about how ultra right wing Gorsuch is but they'll confirm him. Their best play is prevent Republicans from nuking the filibuster and hope they retake the Senate in 2018. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Democrats aren't getting anyone better than Gorsuch, and at least he's well qualified and respected among the legal community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Mudguard said: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Democrats aren't getting anyone better than Gorsuch, and at least he's well qualified and respected among the legal community. The other amusing thing to note is that being such a strict, hardcore constitutionalist Gorsuch might find himself directly opposed to a whole fucking lot of what Trump attempts to do. Scalia was pretty strict on things like first amendment rights, and even found himself baffled about things like giving immigrants more rights if they're going through criminal trials. Can you imagine Gorsuch having to try an emolument trial? He'd absolutely jump at the chance to recite the federalist papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 [MOD] Another mod has indicated that we are discussing a position on something. That means don't raise it. Again, the forum rules do not permit embedded videos. This warning was posted upthread and should have needed to be repeated. [/MOD] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: The flip side to this is that will absolutely enrage the progressives, which will mean a much less effective campaign in 2018 as the typical democrat/progressive infighting and ideological purity will reign supreme. For that reason, it may be a better idea to unite on the no appeasement platform and simply have everyone fight, no matter what, on everything. That's an interesting point. Yeah, there appears to be a subset of progressives that are willing to sit elections out in the name of ideological purity, even if that means that a person like Trump could get elected. Doing that seems crazy to me, but we won't know if they've learned their lesson until after the 2018 election. Several of the liberal justices are very old, so it's critical to retake the Senate in 2018. Maybe the best approach is for a handful of Senate Democrats to cross the line to vote with Republicans while the rest of the Democrats put on a show to appease the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Mudguard said: That's an interesting point. Yeah, there appears to be a subset of progressives that are willing to sit elections out in the name of ideological purity, even if that means that a person like Trump could get elected. Doing that seems crazy to me, but we won't know if they've learned their lesson until after the 2018 election. Several of the liberal justices are very old, so it's critical to retake the Senate in 2018. Maybe the best approach is for a handful of Senate Democrats to cross the line to vote with Republicans while the rest of the Democrats put on a show to appease the base. Yeah, well, we just saw the progressive base shoot itself in the ass because of email servers. People are stupid, and stupidity doesn't stop just because you're on the liberal side. What might work best is for the Democrats to be really, really annoying. Super slow play the hearings, super delay things. Make it take a really long time. Don't refuse outright to hear him, but use whatever possible parliamentary tricks that can be done to make it take just forever and ever. And then actually (mostly) vote for him, or vote for him with enough votes to confirm with a good chunk of potentially unsafe seats voting against. Have the Manchins vote for him, that sort of thing. It pisses the Republicans off, but if they choose to go nuclear it still won't help, because the filibuster threat isn't what is being delayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Mudguard said: I'm just pointing out that there would likely be some severe unintended consequences of shortening patent term for pharma, biotech, and medical device companies. It's already relatively difficult for most health care startups to raise money from investors, who are typically venture capitalist firms or the VC arm of a large corporation. It often takes 10+ years and tens of millions to over 100 million for a startup to develop a drug or medical device and bring it to market, and then there's always the risk that the product fails in clinical trials. Compare that to software startups like Facebook, instagram, whatsapp, etc., where it's possible to achieve massive returns in a relatively short period of time. As you can imagine, investing in pharma, biotech, and medical device startups is less attractive for many investors. Doesn't seem fair to me or a good idea to make pharma patent terms shorter than software patents. As an aside, why are "startups" the answer? Medical devices are not generally trivial to produce, and most products come from the likes of GE, Dräger, Stryker, Medtronic, etc. What's more, "smaller" pharmaceutical companies like Alexion absolutely rake in revenue from orphan drugs for rare diseases. It helps that (currently) it has no competition for something like Soliris, for which it can charge pretty much anything, and especially because its indications are only for very uncommon conditions. Of course, it's not patents that are necessarily the problem, but price regulation more broadly. 1 hour ago, Mudguard said: The problem is that it's just generally very difficult to develop new drugs. Same thing with developing cures for cancer and HIV. We have lots of cures for "cancer" and even more treatments, be it surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, hormone/targeted receptor therapy... it goes on. We can also prevent HIV transmission and treat it more effectively than many other things. We might get a good vaccine one day, but you're not going to be able to "cure" it. Back to Trump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 42 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: So should we defund the NIH? Stop paying to improve roads? How about we just defund the government altogether? Your point was exactly wut, again? My point was that we should completely defund the government in the same way, and to the same extent that your point was that we should federalize all research. If you want to engage in caricature as a form of expression, that's your prerogative, I have no specific objection or aversion to it, but you should hardly expect a substantive response to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Swordfish said: My point was that we should completely defund the government in the same way, and to the same extent that your point was that we should federalize all research. Did I say, we should federalize all research? No I didn't. And "My point was that we should completely defund the government in the same way....". Huh? Just now, Swordfish said: If you want to engage in caricature as a form of expression, that's your prerogative, I have no specific objection or aversion to it, but you should hardly expect a substantive response to it. Never expected a substantive response, since the original assertion was largely nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Did I say, we should federalize all research? No I didn't. Indeed. You did not. That is my point. I also said nothing about defunding all federal research. And yet, here we are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Dems don't stand a chance of regaining the House or the Senate in 2018. Any strategy they came up with needs to be geared towards that fact. If they want to block Gorsuch they'll have to do it for this entire presidential term. If they do expect Republicans to beat them just as hard for it as they beat republicans for blocking Garland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Swordfish said: Indeed. You did not. That is my point. I also said nothing about defunding all federal research. And yet, here we are.... But, surely, according to your original logic, it would make sense to say cut funding for the CDC, right? Should we cut funding cause its wasteful? Or should be do it simply because Trump is in office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 48 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Yeah, well, we just saw the progressive base shoot itself in the ass because of email servers. People are stupid, and stupidity doesn't stop just because you're on the liberal side. What might work best is for the Democrats to be really, really annoying. Super slow play the hearings, super delay things. Make it take a really long time. Don't refuse outright to hear him, but use whatever possible parliamentary tricks that can be done to make it take just forever and ever. And then actually (mostly) vote for him, or vote for him with enough votes to confirm with a good chunk of potentially unsafe seats voting against. Have the Manchins vote for him, that sort of thing. It pisses the Republicans off, but if they choose to go nuclear it still won't help, because the filibuster threat isn't what is being delayed. This. If he's to go through, not a single inch should be given without making things as uncomfortable as possible. Any and all tricks. Nothing is off the table. Republicans didn't have to vote for Garland, but by refusing to even meet with him, let alone have a vote, they have abrogated any chance of just getting what they want without a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said: If they do expect Republicans to beat them just as hard for it as they beat republicans for blocking Garland. Yeah, that seemed to really hamstring them this time around, didn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.