2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

marienbad · 09-08-2016 07:57PM

alastair wrote: »

America still makes lots of 'things'. And a $60 drill isn't worth buying. You'll get a perfectly decent US manufactured one for $140 though.

And you can buy them here in Ireland in Woodies and Homebase , so not only are they manufacturing jobs but they are exporting their product ! A win win

Amerika · 09-08-2016 08:03PM

marienbad wrote: »

And you can buy them here in Ireland in Woodies and Homebase , so not only are they manufacturing jobs but they are exporting their product ! A win win

"DEWALT is a global manufacturer and distributor of power tools. We currently manufacture our tools in the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, China, Italy, the U.K. and the Czech Republic, among other locations, and our products are made with materials and components from all over the globe."

Per Dewalt website.

marienbad · 09-08-2016 08:09PM

Amerika wrote: »

Demand should drive development, not taxpayer dollars funneled into risky private entities. The free market system will create innovation, if it is there, and if it is cost effective.

Did you know it takes from $1.4 billion to $2.6 billion to bring a drug to market here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-real-costs-of-developing-a-new-drug.html?_r=0

Indeed I did - and lets take an example of a drug I know well that is as common as muck - Augmentin , patented in Europe in the late 70's and in the US in the early 80's , as well as being an essential in lung infections in humans it has branched out to treat kennel cough in dogs, urinary infections in cats dogs , mastitis in cows ,respiratory tract infection in pigs
and only recently has the patent expired - how much profit was pulled in on that one ? And that is not one of the really big ones .

Rest assured these guys are not in it for any altruistic reasons - just the money , like any other conglomerate .

And by the way I am a big fan of American corporations ( with reservations) and the profit motive so this is not just a ould socialist rant

marienbad · 09-08-2016 08:11PM

Amerika wrote: »

"DEWALT is a global manufacturer and distributor of power tools. We currently manufacture our tools in the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, China, Italy, the U.K. and the Czech Republic, among other locations, and our products are made with materials and components from all over the globe."

Per Dewalt website.

Well then Out with Dewalt I say we can make our own drills in Ireland

Amerika · 09-08-2016 08:14PM

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed I did - and lets take an example of a drug I know well that is as common as muck - Augmentin , patented in Europe in the late 70's and in the US in the early 80's , as well as being an essential in lung infections in humans it has branched out to treat kennel cough in dogs, urinary infections in cats dogs , mastitis in cows ,respiratory tract infection in pigs
and only recently has the patent expired - how much profit was pulled in on that one ? And that is not one of the really big ones .

Rest assured these guys are not in it for any altruistic reasons - just the money , like any other conglomerate .

And by the way I am a big fan of American corporations ( with reservations) and the profit motive so this is not just a ould socialist rant

And that is the complexity of the drug market. Sure a drug similar to Augmentin could only cost $.05 to make, and their charging $5.00 per tablet, but you need to recover the cost of bringing that drug to market and cover the cost of new drugs and their development. I doubt people will want to be charged per pill based on each drug's cost alone. That could potentially run into tens of thousands of dollars per pill.

Amerika · 09-08-2016 08:14PM

marienbad wrote: »

Well then Out with Dewalt I say we can make our own drills in Ireland

Will they be green instead of yellow? :P

marienbad · 09-08-2016 08:37PM

Amerika wrote: »

And that is the complexity of the drug market. Sure a drug similar to Augmentin could only cost $.05 to make, and their charging $5.00 per tablet, but you need to recover the cost of bringing that drug to market and cover the cost of new drugs and their development. I doubt people will want to be charged per pill based on each drug's cost alone. That could potentially run into tens of thousands of dollars per pill.

Yeah I understand that - but don't weep for these guys they are well able to defend themselves. And still make a handsome profit

But abuse of patents and exporting manufacturing jobs overseas is not really America's problem though . It is the widening gap between the rich and poor , the value of capital versus labour etc . The same problems we face in Europe - the winners and losers in the process of Globalisation .

Both Democrats and Republicans created these issues and it will take both to solve them .

KingBrian2 · 09-08-2016 08:54PM

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah I understand that - but don't weep for these guys they are well able to defend themselves. And still make a handsome profit

But abuse of patents and exporting manufacturing jobs overseas is not really America's problem though . It is the widening gap between the rich and poor , the value of capital versus labour etc . The same problems we face in Europe - the winners and losers in the process of Globalisation .

Both Democrats and Republicans created these issues and it will take both to solve them .

This line is especially the case although we are reminded at every possible turn that the Republicans built the American economy on sand. It was the Democrats that agreed to NAFTA, opposed Russia joining the WTO and prolonged the sanctions on Iran. Most American politicians cannot get elected if they reject unfettered free trade.

marienbad · 09-08-2016 08:58PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This line is especially the case although we are reminded at every possible turn that the Republicans built the American economy on sand. It was the Democrats that agreed to NAFTA, opposed Russia joining the WTO and prolonged the sanctions on Iran. Most American politicians cannot get elected if they reject unfettered free trade.

And all those positions were basically right .

The problems facing America and Europe require different solutions than going back to the 60's . The problem at the moment is that all our politician like our generals are always fighting the last war .

Amerika · 09-08-2016 09:06PM

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah I understand that - but don't weep for these guys they are well able to defend themselves. And still make a handsome profit

But abuse of patents and exporting manufacturing jobs overseas is not really America's problem though . It is the widening gap between the rich and poor , the value of capital versus labour etc . The same problems we face in Europe - the winners and losers in the process of Globalisation .

Both Democrats and Republicans created these issues and it will take both to solve them .

I agree with everything you noted except abuse of patents. Countries can and do just make their own drugs, ignoring patent rights and force the drug companies to sue them in international court.

How would the rest of the world feel if a US drug company created a new drug and said... sorry, we're only going to offer it in the US until abuses from other countries regarding our patents stop? And we're going to deny shipment to all foreign countries because it takes a global effort to put pressure on the abuses of some.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2013/04/08/indias-solution-to-drug-costs-ignore-patents-and-control-prices-except-for-home-grown-drugs/#5e3cb6465c46

KingBrian2 · 09-08-2016 09:22PM

marienbad wrote: »

And all those positions were basically right .

The problems facing America and Europe require different solutions than going back to the 60's . The problem at the moment is that all our politician like our generals are always fighting the last war .

At least we can agree we are going back to the 60's and not the 30's or 80's or 90's because the world has changed America has not. For two centuries America has been the biggest promoter of free trade now that China and India are getting stronger they are focusing on reorienting their economies away from relying totally on free trade from Capitalists that place profit ahead of the national good.

Today international trade works well among smaller economies that can ensure the safety of their citizens and trade with one another. What I would like to know is can a potential President Trump make a better deal with the Mexicans than the Clintons have? We have been living in a Clinton era which placed globalization ahead of a balanced budget. Clinton is more responsible for Mexican illegal immigration than Trump.

Akrasia · 09-08-2016 09:42PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

At least we can agree we are going back to the 60's and not the 30's or 80's or 90's because the world has changed America has not. For two centuries America has been the biggest promoter of free trade now that China and India are getting stronger they are focusing on reorienting their economies away from relying totally on free trade from Capitalists that place profit ahead of the national good.

Today international trade works well among smaller economies that can ensure the safety of their citizens and trade with one another. What I would like to know is can a potential President Trump make a better deal with the Mexicans than the Clintons have? We have been living in a Clinton era which placed globalization ahead of a balanced budget. Clinton is more responsible for Mexican illegal immigration than Trump.

America never relied on free trade. They relied on being able to rig the markets in their favour.

The free trade narrative was just a ploy to get everyone to agree to trade deals that benefit corporate interests and to force developing countries to deregulate and privatise resources

Black Swan · 09-08-2016 09:55PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's probably time Trump dropped out. I don't know how a narcissist could handle the beating he is going to get in November.

Methinks Trump will not drop out at this point in the 2016 presidential election cycle. He has gone too far, and such dropping out might affect the Trump brand, which may result in reduced profits and ROI for Trump enterprises, which includes his extended family's Trump-related companies from 3 marriages and employed children (e.g., nobody likes a quitter meme).

But Donald Trump is putting together an exit strategy in case he does lose the presidency, with all his talk about 8 November 2016 being "fixed." This is ironic, given that the November general election has not occurred, he has no evidence supporting such an advanced claim, only "feelings." All 50 states, DC, and territories would have to be "fixed" comprehensively, an extraordinary task, reminding me of the 2000 presidential election where everyone was focusing on swing-state Florida with its overseas ballots delays, dimpled chads, mismatched butterfly ballots, etc.; i.e., each state runs its part of the national election, so Trump's claim is just more of his MOUTHED nonsense that only Eric Hoffer's "True Believers" would swallow.

Quin_Dub · 09-08-2016 10:05PM

Trump suggests his supporters could just shoot Clinton if she wins

And once again, after a reasonably solid day yesterday, Trump shoots from the hip and undoes any possible up-side from his Economic speech... He just seems incapable of controlling his mouth.

PopePalpatine · 09-08-2016 10:09PM

I tell ya, I do great pranks, these pranks are so great like you wouldn't believe.

Akrasia · 09-08-2016 10:09PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump suggests his supporters could just shoot Clinton if she wins

And once again, after a reasonably solid day yesterday, Trump shoots from the hip and undoes any possible up-side from his Economic speech... He just seems incapable of controlling his mouth.

It's funny because it's true

Amerika · 09-08-2016 10:21PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump suggests his supporters could just shoot Clinton if she wins

And once again, after a reasonably solid day yesterday, Trump shoots from the hip and undoes any possible up-side from his Economic speech... He just seems incapable of controlling his mouth.

Of course our media would go in that direction. Is there any doubt? You need something for the Daily Two Minutes Of (Trump) Hate, after all. Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton wanted to essentially abolish the Second Amendment if she gets to pick her SOCTUS judges. Fact... NRA and Second Amendment folks are some of the most law-abiding people in America. Trump was just talking about the lobbying power of the NRA and 2A supporters to stop a very anti-Second Amendment agenda. But that simple explanation doesn’t fit into the media’s 'Full Palin' assault on Trump.

marienbad · 09-08-2016 10:23PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

At least we can agree we are going back to the 60's and not the 30's or 80's or 90's because the world has changed America has not. For two centuries America has been the biggest promoter of free trade now that China and India are getting stronger they are focusing on reorienting their economies away from relying totally on free trade from Capitalists that place profit ahead of the national good.

Today international trade works well among smaller economies that can ensure the safety of their citizens and trade with one another. What I would like to know is can a potential President Trump make a better deal with the Mexicans than the Clintons have? We have been living in a Clinton era which placed globalization ahead of a balanced budget. Clinton is more responsible for Mexican illegal immigration than Trump.

Mexican immigration ,illegal or otherwise is not the problem .

Skylinehead · 09-08-2016 10:25PM

Amerika wrote: »

Of course our media would go in that direction. Is there any doubt? You need something for the Daily Two Minutes Of (Trump) Hate, after all. Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton wanted to essentially abolish the Second Amendment if she gets to pick her SOCTUS judges. Fact... NRA and Second Amendment folks are some of the most law-abiding people in America. Trump was just talking about the lobbying power of the NRA and 2A supporters to stop a very anti-Second Amendment agenda. But that simple explanation doesn’t fit into the media’s 'Full Palin' assault on Trump.

How do you explain that, considering this is in the context of Clinton already being President, and that Trump says "of course that would be terrible" when he realises that wasn't a clever thing to say? He's not talking about lobbying.

alaimacerc · 09-08-2016 10:25PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks Trump will not drop out at this point in the 2016 presidential election cycle. He has gone too far, and such dropping out might affect the Trump brand, which may result in reduced profits and ROI for Trump enterprises, which includes his extended family's Trump-related companies from 3 marriages and employed children (e.g., nobody likes a quitter meme).

Personally, I don't see how the Trump "brand" could survive him dropping out. But come to that, I don't see how it survives him losing. Or indeed, him winning...

Akrasia · 09-08-2016 10:27PM

Amerika wrote: »

Of course our media would go in that direction. Is there any doubt? You need something for the Daily Two Minutes Of (Trump) Hate, after all. Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton wanted to essentially abolish the Second Amendment if she gets to pick her SOCTUS judges. Fact... NRA and Second Amendment folks are some of the most law-abiding people in America. Trump was just talking about the lobbying power of the NRA and 2A supporters to stop a very anti-Second Amendment agenda. But that simple explanation doesn’t fit into the media’s 'Full Palin' assault on Trump.

Clinton won't abolish the 2nd ammendment so trump is full of sh1t before he even starts threatening her with death by redneck

Black Swan · 09-08-2016 10:34PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump suggests his supporters could just shoot Clinton if she wins

And once again, after a reasonably solid day yesterday, Trump shoots from the hip and undoes any possible up-side from his Economic speech... He just seems incapable of controlling his mouth.

Donald Trump speaking about Hillary Clinton: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks," he said. "Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don't know." The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

Of course this is subject to interpretation, but wrong interpretations by Trump supporters that are on the extreme abnormal and violent fringe may interpret Trump's message similar to being in Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map, which may or may not have had something to do with the attempted assassination and shooting of US congresswoman from Arizona Gabrielle Giffords.

InTheTrees · 09-08-2016 10:35PM

Amerika wrote: »

Of course our media would go in that direction. Is there any doubt? You need something for the Daily Two Minutes Of (Trump) Hate, after all.

Trump has this annoyinghly predictable way of speaking where he throws out these lunatic hypotheticals that he then disavows so he presumable feels he can then childishly deny it.

No wonder it sucks up the news time. We'd all be talking about news bias if they ignored the outrageous stuff he says.

Akrasia · 09-08-2016 10:35PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Personally, I don't see how the Trump "brand" could survive him dropping out. But come to that, I don't see how it survives him losing. Or indeed, him winning...

This election has proven that even reasonable personal incredulity is divorced from reality when it comes to Trump and the US public.

Trump was already a celebrity brand. What have the Kardashians ever done and their brand is worth a fortune. Trump will turn any outcome of this election into a positive reinforcement of his commercial brand, and if it takes bankruptcy and complete restructuring to do that then he'll do that

LostinKildare · 09-08-2016 10:47PM

Amerika wrote: »

Of course our media would go in that direction. Is there any doubt? You need something for the Daily Two Minutes Of (Trump) Hate, after all. Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton wanted to essentially abolish the Second Amendment if she gets to pick her SOCTUS judges. Fact... NRA and Second Amendment folks are some of the most law-abiding people in America. Trump was just talking about the lobbying power of the NRA and 2A supporters to stop a very anti-Second Amendment agenda. But that simple explanation doesn’t fit into the media’s 'Full Palin' assault on Trump.

Oh, come on. Those law-abiding Second Amendment folks know a dog-whistle threat when they hear one:

For some die-hard gun rights backers who had been wary of Trump, his comments were confirmation that he doesn’t really get their movement. When the National Rifle Association endorsed Trump in May, Bob Owens, the editor of BearingArms.com, reasoned that he was the best chance to beat Clinton, who has embraced gun control. On Tuesday, however, Owens refused to buy Trump’s explanation that he was talking about voting.
"That was a threat of violence. As a REAL supporter of the #2A it's appalling to me,” Owens tweeted. Bearing Arms had sponsored the May meeting of the NRA’s lobbying arm where the group formally endorsed Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-second-amendment-judges-guns-226833

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Black Swan · 09-08-2016 10:48PM

Akrasia wrote: »

TTrump was already a celebrity brand. What have the Kardashians ever done and their brand is worth a fortune. Trump will turn any outcome of this election into a positive reinforcement of his commercial brand, and if it takes bankruptcy and complete restructuring to do that then he'll do that

Ivanka Trump did not wait for 8 November 2016 to sell the pink dress she wore during her introduction of father Donald Trump at July's RNC, which is now sold out. "Shop Ivanka's look from her #RNC speech." Makes you wonder what else the Trump's will sell if Donald is elected? Sell out America?

oscarBravo · 09-08-2016 10:54PM

Amerika wrote: »

Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton wanted to essentially abolish the Second Amendment if she gets to pick her SOCTUS judges.

Surprise, surprise: Donald Trump doesn't understand Civics 101.

Neither POTUS nor SCOTUS can abolish the second amendment. Someone should try to hold Trump's attention for the three minutes it would take to explain to him how the US Constitution gets amended.

KingBrian2 · 09-08-2016 10:57PM

marienbad wrote: »

Mexican immigration ,illegal or otherwise is not the problem .

Not so for the border states. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas & Florida have major concerns with illegal border crossings. Trump has promised to build a wall from California to the Gulf Coast and to those people he is dealing with he is the man to do it. Hillary has proposed very little and as far as I know is still a fan of NAFTA. Can anyone answer if NAFTA was good for US-Mexican relations or bad. It seems a lot less good came to Mexico with that deal and America also is suffering from this really bad trade deal.

alaimacerc · 09-08-2016 11:20PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Neither POTUS nor SCOTUS can abolish the second amendment. Someone should try to hold Trump's attention for the three minutes it would take to explain to him how the US Constitution gets amended.

SCOTUS gets to "these are not the droids you're looking for" it, though. Many would say they've already done this to the prefatory clause, for example. But certainly the right's not an absolute one: where's your right to bear automatic weaponry, shoulder-launched missiles, MBTs, air-superiority aircraft, tacnooks, etc? Hence the importance of "interpretation" of same.

RobertKK · 09-08-2016 11:51PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Sadly they do. They even featured in an episode on South Park.

Do you have any evidence that Trump isn't donating to NAMBLA? What is he trying to hide by not releasing his tax returns? Do you not find his close friendship with a known sex offender to be suspicious?

If they are just rumours then why doesn't Trump deny them? Why doesn't he release his tax returns to prove everyone wrong? There's no smoke without fire.

It belonged in the conspiracy forum, I would have been told where to go if I used as a reply, do you have any evidence all those deaths of people who are becoming a problem for the Clintons are not being killed off by Clinton associates?
I would not even use that as an argument.

As for your last paragraph, why have the Clinton's not come out and denied rumours they are involved in the death of people?

You should have received the same warning I received about conspiracy, though I had not said the Clinton's had been involved in their deaths, just they were a posing a problem for them, instead you got thanked by the person who warned me for what is conspiracy.

You have no evidence for what you posted.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments