A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[martinson]

Goes back to what I said earlier, once challenged you walk away

Just to conclude I don't have all day to keep arguing with you.

I've already put up dozens of posts.

Your concept of challenged is interesting to say the least.

 

[McIvor]

Yep because Musk is clearly a clown



And then there’s this lol

 

[briztoon]

You're a classic Nathan.

Kennedy's going after big pharma. The price everyone pays for drugs around the world is outrageous . Tax rightoffs take care of development and production and distribution is zilch considering what we all pay. I hope they don't take a shot at him because they have form in that area as well. But expect a mountain of bad publicity to come his way.

I would've thought someone of your political bent would be absolutely delighted that he was taking on the biggest companies and monopolies in the world that sell product to EVERYBODY.

If he was on Kamarla's team you'd be loving him. But we know where some of their money comes from don't we.

Unless governments nationalise pharmaceutical companies, how exactly are they going to make medicine cheaper?

What you suggested above is simply not going to happen.

 

[HereIGoAgain]

This sucking up to yank oligarchs is downright UNAUSTRALIAN! Our Diggers who gave those Yank Bastards a good flogging in the Battle of Brisbane would be rolling in their graves if they heard the simping going on around here.

 

[M Malice]

So someone with a net worth of US$320 billion is a good guy for employing 10s of thousands of Americans?

I also assume he doesn't pay tax

YES!

If he doesn't pay any tax that is the system and that is smart, do you expect him to donate money to the IRS.

Goes back to what I said earlier, once challenged you walk away

Your arguments all amount to Orange man bad, Tech man bad and that's about it NB.

Orange man and Tech man could cure cancer and you'd still think they are the devil incarnate.
____________________________
I'll vacate this thread for a while, I'm starting to find it boring and circular, as martinson said you will not be changing my view and I will not be changing your view on the likes of Trump, Elon, RFK Jnr, Vivek, Tulsi etc...... unless extraordinarily good or bad things happen in Trumps return to the Presidency, one of the most amazing comebacks in Political history.

Back to the 2nd half of the Prelim for me.

 

[Nathan Barley]

YES!

If he doesn't pay any tax that is the system and that is smart, do you expect him to donate money to the IRS.

Your arguments all amount to Orange man bad, Tech man bad and that's about it NB.

Orange man and Tech man could cure cancer and you'd still think they are the devil incarnate.
____________________________
I'll vacate this thread for a while, I'm starting to find it boring and circular, as martinson said you will not be changing my view and I will not be changing your view on the likes of Trump, Elon, RFK Jnr, Vivek, Tulsi etc...... unless extraordinarily good or bad things happen in Trumps return to the Presidency, one of the most amazing comebacks in Political history.

Back to the 2nd half of the Prelim for me.

So i assume he'll be suggesting changing the system then

I made the point that most were overseas and that he was profiting exponentially more from the amount of American jobs than his employees actually are.

And by they are bad I assume you mean they have a track record of rorting the system for their own game and screwing over american citizens and there's no reason to assume that'll change when they're in the government

But yeah go away

 

[Grasshopper17]

YES!

If he doesn't pay any tax that is the system and that is smart, do you expect him to donate money to the IRS.

Have you ever seen that video where Kerry Packer fronts some senate inquiry in the early 90s and talks about how he's minimising tax rather than avoiding/evading tax. He goes onto say something along the lines of "anyone who's not should have their heads read cos let me tell you, you're not spending it well enough that we should be donating extra."

 

[SizeMatters]

Unless governments nationalise pharmaceutical companies, how exactly are they going to make medicine cheaper?

What you suggested above is simply not going to happen.

There are plenty of ways to do this. Most appropriate in this instance is regulation. I’d suggest some reading on government regulation of monopolies.

 

[dlanod]

He's not an anti vaxer . He's anti disinformation and lack of efficacy in vaccines over covid. He's not taking vaccines away from anybody. But hopefully he cleans up the pharma companies who actually fund the FDA and get their own drugs rubber stamped post haste and don't give anyone not in the cartel a look in.

Of course I mention popularity. He's allowed to be popular isn't he. That's got nothing to do with the above.

He was ranting and reciting bullshit about vaccines over a decade before COVID. COVID just gave him a handy pulpit and got others into his pro-hurting kids camp.

 

[briztoon]

There are plenty of ways to do this. Most appropriate in this instance is regulation. I’d suggest some reading on government regulation of monopolies.

But there is no monopoly. There are over two and half thousand pharmaceutical companies in the USA.

No idea how many in the world, but there’s no monopoly here. There’s over ten thousand in China.

I’d suggest you do a little research in to the the big, bad “big pharma” you believe is an enemy.

Edit: oops, thought you were Jason for a second.

 

[SizeMatters]

But there is no monopoly. There are over two and half thousand pharmaceutical companies in the USA.

No idea how many in the world, but there’s no monopoly here. There’s over ten thousand in China.

I’d suggest you do a little research in to the the big, bad “big pharma” you believe is an enemy.

Edit: oops, thought you were Jason for a second.

Apologies. For some reason I’d thought it was a monopolistic industry over in the US. At least in the sense that majority of sales, revenues and ultimately profits are concentrated in a handful of companies. Which could still be the case even with 2000+ companies.

Regardless, government can and do provide consumer safeguards through regulation and appropriate civil penalties.

Okay. I was a bit unsure about the sarcastic big pharma comment directed at me and doubtful it’s helpful to whoever its directed towards.

 

[MSB ROYS]

But there is no monopoly. There are over two and half thousand pharmaceutical companies in the USA.

No idea how many in the world, but there’s no monopoly here. There’s over ten thousand in China.

I’d suggest you do a little research in to the the big, bad “big pharma” you believe is an enemy.

Edit: oops, thought you were Jason for a second.

Patents grant a monopoly of 20 years from filing, so there is no company monopoly per se but there are product monopolies.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Apologies. For some reason I’d thought it was a monopolistic industry over in the US. At least in the sense that majority of sales, revenues and ultimately profits are concentrated in a handful of companies. Which could still be the case even with 2000+ companies.

Regardless, government can and do provide consumer safeguards through regulation and appropriate civil penalties.

Okay. I was a bit unsure about the sarcastic big pharma comment directed at me and doubtful it’s helpful to whoever its directed towards.

Hopefully I can help explain a bit.

The money involved with developing drugs, especially through the phase 3 trial(s) and regulatory registration phases (called NDA in most of the world and MAA in Europe), is usually too expensive for most biotech companies. Therefore, this is why a majority of drug candidates are registered and why most patented drugs are sold by medium to large pharmaceutical companies. Obviously this situation changes when patents expire and generic medicines can be sold. There are also considerable costs and know-how involved with manufacturing, sale, distribution, and fulfilling compliance to the regulatory bodies (so called phase 4).

Drug pricing is a complex issue, especially in the US, but some differences include the role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) act as intermediaries between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and insurers, negotiating rebates and prices, and their insurance system and coverage gaps.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Yep because Musk is clearly a clown
....

McIvor I have a deep admiration for Elon, especially Space-X, Tesla and StarLink. In particular, he will be remembered IMO well into the future for helping to lead the acceleration of Homo sapiens into an interstellar species. He may even become one of the most famous humans to ever live, and he is living in our time.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Interesting interview with the CEO of Polymarket, which is a platform where people can bet on politics, news, culture and technology. While early, seems to be outperforming traditional political polls. Another example of a traditional business losing market share. As an aside, he did get raided by the FBI after the election - must be doing sometime right or wrong.

 

[dlanod]

Interesting interview with the CEO of Polymarket, which is a platform where people can bet on politics, news, culture and technology. While early, seems to be outperforming traditional political polls. Another example of a traditional business losing market share.

Variants of this have been around for a long time now unless he's doing something different that I can't see. There were prediction markets back in the Obama/Clinton days and they got some buzz because they were more accurate that time around too. However in the years after they've proven to be susceptible to narrative and brigading - they make the headlines when they "win" but keep their heads down when they perform poorly.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Matt Gaetz as next attorney General?

 

[HereIGoAgain]

Matt Gaetz as next attorney General?

A good fit for a Trump administration. Just because you wouldn't let any of these blokes anywhere near your kids doesn't mean they shouldn't hold some of the most powerful positions on the planet.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Interesting interview with the CEO of Polymarket, which is a platform where people can bet on politics, news, culture and technology. While early, seems to be outperforming traditional political polls. Another example of a traditional business losing market share. As an aside, he did get raided by the FBI after the election - must be doing sometime right or wrong.

I must admit, I watched this interview and I still don't really understand how this polymarket is any different to a traditional betting exchange like Betfair.

 

[Elixuh]

I must admit, I watched this interview and I still don't really understand how this polymarket is any different to a traditional betting exchange like Betfair.

Most of them don’t get raided by the FBI like Polymarket did today

 

[MSB ROYS]

I must admit, I watched this interview and I still don't really understand how this polymarket is any different to a traditional betting exchange like Betfair.

Agree but we don't know if there are any underlying algorithms. We will probably find out that the proponents are major shareholders, as well spruikers. Anyway, I thought it's was interesting tool though and likely to be more accurate than non-aggregated polls.

 

[notliondown]

Elon is a master troller, love it >

Is he? He is a thin skinned megalomaniac who acts like a spoiled child. Ask Steven King.

Musk is truly a genius... but not for the reasons his sycophants want to believe. He has manipulated and destroyed people on every step of his journey. He's taken credit and avoided blame like the Teflon man... how he is not in jail for his fraudulent Tesla claims and deaths baffles me.

Trump is Musk's latest puppet... Trump just hasn't worked that out yet.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Elon’s a POS sorry not sorry

 

[notliondown]

When did an individuals right to exist however they feel most comfortable become an affront?

The idea that just being able to respect and acknowledge someone different from you is "woke" blows my mind. That equality on every level being a basic human right is up for debate baffles me. That this argument can be used over and over as a political weapon scares me.

I can't fathom the fury that this stuff causes people who are literally never affected by it. Getting pissy about how other people live their lives or what they like to be called is such small potatoes and yet it's waved around like a WW3 trigger. If you don't like it ignore it. These issues affect small groups of individuals - minorities of diversity. Clutching your pearls and trying to explain how these people affect your very existence is laughable.

But on the other hand mass policy indoctrination by the right that affects huge swathes of the population should be just waved on through? That the right's minorities that have big big voices should just get what they want no questions asked?

Like the Christian extremists... you know, the ones behind Project 2025? Like the ones in Oklahoma that have now demanded a Trump bible in every classroom and that Bible studies must be part of the curriculum from grades 5 to 12? Like the other States insisting the 10 commandments must be on display in every class.

All of that religious diatribe is OK right?

Let's not even discuss the religious repercussions on the abortion debate and the social media spike of young men running around declaring "your body my right".

If the right is so much about the rights of the individual explain to me how this works?

 

[notliondown]

There is no denying that the left and Dem's need to take a good hard look at themselves.

You can argue all day about whether the population should have swallowed Trumps simplistic and populist bullshit that has little to no hope of actually improving the lives of the people that voted for him. But the reality is it resonated with a population who feel they are worse off today than they were. True or not that's their world and no one should blame them for wanting to better it.

The lefts language and messaging is so far off the mark that regardless of whether it's policies were better or not, it simply doesn't cut through. There was too much focus on too little and not enough on big picture topics.

And, the largest reason they lost, is simply that Harris and the Dems chose the align themselves with more of the same rather than being better or different. They didn't read the room.

They should have over-promised, just like Trump, and worried about it when they took office.

Trumps America won't provide the paradise his supporters hope.

My social media (I deliberately make sure to follow both sides) is mind blowing at the moment. I saw a women filling her car saying that this would be the last time she paid more than $2 a gallon because Trump will fix it. I saw another saying that their grocery bill would halve under Trump. Another couple were waiting for their energy bill to finally be back to pre pandemic levels.

In some ways he's lucky he will be a single term President (assuming he doesn't screw the constitution). He has no hope of living up to his promises and what he does gain in short term will come from current policy.

Truth has long been a casualty in politics... Trump made it an art form.