Both campaign's seem to be having amateur hour when throwing out recent policy proposals.
This is the Democratic Party.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
I would argue it’s a direct reflection on both candidates.
I intended that thought to be implied.
Both campaigns are marketing to the lowest common denominator. This did not used to be the case. It's what Biden/Kamala/Trump have driven us towards.
The unintelligent don't trust our intelligentsia/scientists/politicians/media to tell them which policies are decent anymore. I imagine the policy wonks decided there is nothing else to do in this situation. Especially since the two candidates for the presidency are venturing towards the lowest common denominator themselves.
Last edited:
she helped create the problem, now she says she can fix it. That will be the best trick since Magicians started sawin people in half
Some context in a later post.
"She's referring to prescription drugs that received public funding from what she calls RND. Whether that's subsidies or financial funding I don't know. Not defending her but it needs context."
Taking a patent because it received government or public subsidies and/or funding is still wrong. People wouldn't apply for funding or subsidies if there was the chance the patent could be acquired by force by the government. That's essentially slave labor by the government with no warning.
Makes more sense. She seems to give these broad policy statements without much thought of real life effects. Suppose they’re targeted for a particular audience. Her problem imo is she’s painted herself even further left when she should be coming to the center. …or at least left center. She’s lucky she’s running against Trump 
All that momentum is going to be wasted on these careless, not well thought out moves to the left, instead of towards the center. She fooled me for a tiny moment, that she could continue with this momentum. Then Kamality set in. I go back to my original thought that she will fall flat on her face in mid Sept/early Oct. Neither one can get out of the way of their mouths.Makes more sense. She seems to give these broad policy statements without much thought of real life effects. Suppose they’re targeted for a particular audience. Her problem imo is she’s painted herself even further left when she should be coming to the center. …or at least left center. She’s lucky she’s running against Trump
Not really a surprise that they would go after patents. The Dems have been threatening to nationalize the oil industry for years..
I do believe the government should be allowed some special privilege if it’s acting as a primary investor…. It should at least be able to have some say in the market cost of the product.
Or maybe those drugs should move to generic status faster than privately funded drugs.
Just spitballing some ideas on equity.
I thought they were acting as an instigator of progress, not as an investor. If you limit the cost, then you limit the desire to create the product, which is the opposite of an instigator of progress. And that language was not in the application for funding or subsidies that they filled out. It is going against the statutes & regulations for public/govt funding & subsidies.
Is it really progress if it remains too expensive for the general public to use for an extremely long period of time?
A wonder drug only available to the rich and famous or which will bankrupt the common patient isn’t something the government should be funding.
I recognize the financial investment required to facilitate innovation and the benefits of that innovation, but it can’t be done at the cost of society’s well being (same thing goes for a space program)
Last edited:
I'm on a drug that costs $6,000,00 /mth. I get it free through a Study Grant.
You are taking advantage of this government study grant that the government shouldn't be funding. That should be left to charities to take care of the cost.
The only thing I can think of that might be just, and lend to innovation in the free market, is to take a few years off of the patent length.(as you mentioned) But you know they will make that up by raising the price while it is still under patent. Nothing comes free. And they would have to change the language of the application to notate the shorter length of patent if taking government aid of any sort. And it can't be applied to former grants & such that did not have that language when given.
But that is not the government 'taking the patent.' That is highway robbery,(slave labor of researchers, and university and private labs) for the government to 'take'/steal a patent. Kamala is showing her true colors here, and inhibiting the free market by championing this type of socialist policy as her agenda. You know she is talking about taking patents with drugs that are already on the market, not future drugs. That is wrong, and highly illegal, despite her insistence that she can do it, if she has the will. She's speaking out of her socialist ass on this. That is very illegal to do without it in the language of grant applications and such, especially in western socialist type governments of the first world. The only countries that pull what she is talking about are dictatorships and third world countries. Not a good look.
All those greedy grocers need to stop ripping off the American people! Hell, I’d be one if there weren’t so many barriers to entry! I’m not talking about the FDA/USDA, or whatever stupid agency that never should’ve been created, though you’ll have to pay me if you want to find out what I consider a personal rule barrier to entry for all markets! Lol here’s hint it’s true for all grocers
Wtf the mental gymnastics I swear… it’s not even close to monopolistic for one, for two IT ISNT FUCCN COVID IT IS DEM RESPONSE TO EVERYTHING KEEP SPENDING KEEP CORRUPTING KEEP REGULATING POWER POWER POWER CONTROL
I thought the same thing actually but someone who was alive then told me other day the Dems didn’t which isn’t what I’d remembered & had believed esp bc LBJ but I’m too lazy to look it up. Good catch, if true. I’m no longer convinced, however & will get back with answer after I see the person.
I believe democrats are stupid enough to bang colors, for sure, but there is no evidence that democrats & republicans switched, not before the colors switching or after. Again, I’m saying it is a lie that the entire parties switched, a couple here & there a couple Dixiecrats whatever that’s not the claim I’m refuting.
That’s awesome lol most of this board votes D & therefore sides with emotion over logic, foreign interests over We the People & “they’re not pedophiles, they’re MAPs & it’s their gender they should be protected from discrimination” over “they should all hang. Firing squad if we conserve ammunition lining them up front to back instead of side by side.”
Friend, please seek some mental health services. I say that as respectfully and honestly as I can. I'm not trying to talk crap to you. The way you've been going on is concerning and I fear that you could ultimately prove a danger to yourself.
What happens when there is no generic because the patent period hasn't ended yet?
I almost feel sorry for him in the present moment, when his condition is peaking/bottoming out.
Her party is almost assured to not win both houses based upon the makeup of the election. The senate is pretty much gone.
23/34 of the seats up for contest are held by Dems.
Last cycle we were assured by the intelligentsia of a RedWave.. the pubs barely got the house..
I wont put anything past the DNC machine in this one.. they see an opportunity to install a puppet and consolidate power
lol…. That speaks a lot to who you consider “intelligencia”
National polling showed a much higher Dem advantage in that cycle than this one does. There were fewer Dem seats contested in the Senate, and Trump had the Covid crisis on his hands.
Last edited:
