|
thejeff, the FDA needs to be reformed. It takes far to long and is far too expensive for a new drug to reach the market. This means that once a drug hits the market it is very expensive and hard for people that make 40k or less to get.
This one thing I think the Congress and the State department need to work with both the EU equivalent of the FDA and the Japanese FDA to have one set of standards for approving drugs do Rigorous testing to make sure the drug is safe then get it to market. 10 years to get a drug to market is just crazy.
The FDA makes it almost impossible to for drug companies to make orphan drugs for people who have rare diseases because of all the testing that is required before a drug is approved.
I am not a supporter of big Pharma I think they over charge for their products Why should one vial of U-500 Insulin cost $125 for a product that is generic?
I pretty much agree with the sentiment here. There has to be some oversight, but not to the degree of determining which products you can or can't buy level. I think that's overreach.I assume that doesn't apply to safety regulations and the like?
Food quality standards?
Medical Drug effectiveness and safety?
Safety features in cars?We can debate the need for specific features, but as a general concept, things like that aren't overreach, right?
No, those fall within the purview, as long as it is consistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've become a capitalist over the past 15 years, it's a system that works really well for large portions of the economy. I think a fair and appropriately regulated economy is better than trying to determine every aspect from on high...
What you describe is the very definition of Democratic Socialism. Essentially, Capitalism, tempered by government to not be as harsh on the citizens.
Considering that about 95% of people I've talked to share a similar economic ideology, I'm always amazed at how b!&*+@~ crazy American politics and media are. Free market capitalism (and libertarianism) are bizarre fantasies that only exists on the furthest fringes, yet it is somehow a holy grail of many elites.
As Yakov Smirnoff once said, "What a country!"
That is a surprisingly naive view for him. I don't *like* that we have a two party system, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.Penn Jillette's thoughts on throwing his vote away:
** spoiler omitted **
It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: A medical doctor dissects Trump's Physician's letter
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.
So, Dr. Harold Bornstein graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College? Huh. Trump's publicist, John Miller, got his Certificate of Attendance from Just The Best MBA School, conveniently located next to the dumpster behind Pink's Hot Dogs on La Brea. I guess it's a not yuge small world after all.
RE: A medical doctor dissects Trump's Physician's letter
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha.
*Reads* Wow.
...
You know, it's stuff like this that makes me seriously wonder whether or not Trump is trying to lose the election...
When do we get to see Hillary's medical stuff?
You know, it's stuff like this that makes me seriously wonder whether or not Trump is trying to lose the election...
Nope. This is literally how Trump runs his business empire on a daily basis. Which, considering my own very-part time employment, is seriously depressing.
...Aren't there regulations about impersonating doctors? I mean, he's clearly not afraid of lawsuits, but that seems like something that could hurt him pretty bad if it was found he wrote it himself (and some people definitely think the handwriting might be a match)...
... I don't *like* that we have a two party system, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.
I'm too lazy to create a Tyler Durden Alias, but I just have to bring up the quote: "And how's that working out for you?"
Do you like your choice of candidates for president?
Do you think the US government does a good job of dealing with foreign and domestic issues?
Do you think the government is getting better or worse?
After 4 or 8 years of more-of-the-same, are your choices going to improve, or get worse? How much longer before the system fails? (If you consider the current situation success)
The usual answers point to the need for serious changes. BOTH candidates want to bring the country backward, or essentially maintain the status quo. Anyone who tells me I have to vote for one or the other, is essentially saying that maybe if we try the same thing yet again, we will get different results, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Not just of the elites. They've conned a huge chunk of the populace into agreeing with them - though as you suggest far less when you describe policies rather than name ideologies.
That is exactly it. People love the label of "Free Market" but I have yet to meet someone who thinks that government should allow poisoned milk to be sold, or their neighbors to starve in the street. People don't want market booms followed by collapses every decades, or .01% controlling most of the wealth, or an almost insurmountable class structure. All of the features that are inherent to capitalism, are unwanted by basically every person I have ever met, yet they are among the most celebrated terms in our language.
vvv Krensky vvv - Yeah, I have met a few, especially when it comes down to letting bad things befall minority groups. I have found that if you personalize it for them ("your neighbors", "your family") that it is only the rarest and truly scariest who still say F-em! These people generally don't really believe in government anyway.
I, sadly have.
They're scary 'people'.
Yes.
I have as well.
It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.That is a surprisingly naive view for him. I don't *like* that we have a two party system, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.Penn Jillette's thoughts on throwing his vote away:
** spoiler omitted **Yes, that's true. Along similar lines, "If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out", monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Any statement that starts with "If false", is logically true.
That's a slight exaggeration. There are cases where voting third party isn't a waste, even on the presidential level, but they only happen when one of the existing two major parties is actually collapsing. Despite Trump's best efforts, we're not there yet. There's an outside chance we're in enough of a realignment it could be true in 2020, but it's still very unlikely. In those cases though it's more a matter of third parties fighting over the still warm corpse of the dying major party to see who gets to replace it. Shortly thereafter it will be pointless to vote 3rd party again.
On the local level, it's sometimes different. There are districts where there is no Democrat/Republican running. In those places, a Libertarian or Green could profitably challenge. Or in districts that are otherwise heavily slanted towards one side. Or any other areas where it's reasonably possible to win.
In most cases it's still more practical to primary candidates and shift the party from inside, as the Tea Party so effectively (and destructively) has done.Of course, if you vote 3rd party in the general and you're in a swing...
Well, if someone doesn't like the two party system, and does nothing to change it, they shouldn't condescend to those that are. The only way to change the kind of people the two major parties are putting up to vote on, is not vote for them. Give a chunk of their popular vote to someone else. Not voting at all is a true waste, no offense Anklebiter.
It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.
Yeah, and if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich. Neither one is going to happen.
A third party candidate will not win without systemic changes (or, as the jeff noted, one of the existing parties collapsing...in which case the party isn't really a "third" party). If voting for someone who cannot win isn't a waste, I'm not sure what is.
It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.Yeah, and if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich. Neither one is going to happen.
A third party candidate will not win without systemic changes (or, as the jeff noted, one of the existing parties collapsing...in which case the party isn't really a "third" party). If voting for someone who cannot win isn't a waste, I'm not sure what is.
If 3rd parties start pulling significant numbers of protest votes then people with similar ideologies within the major parties know they have backing to be more vocal about ideas less mainstream within the major party. This can cause drift within the larger party towards your preferred ideologies.
If 3rd parties start pulling significant numbers of protest votes then people with similar ideologies within the major parties know they have backing to be more vocal about ideas less mainstream within the major party. This can cause drift within the larger party towards your preferred ideologies.It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.Yeah, and if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich. Neither one is going to happen.
A third party candidate will not win without systemic changes (or, as the jeff noted, one of the existing parties collapsing...in which case the party isn't really a "third" party). If voting for someone who cannot win isn't a waste, I'm not sure what is.
Exactly this. The 3rd party may not replace one of the big two, but it may alter thinking within one of the big 2. Either way, mission accomplished, and no vote wasted.
If 3rd parties start pulling significant numbers of protest votes then people with similar ideologies within the major parties know they have backing to be more vocal about ideas less mainstream within the major party. This can cause drift within the larger party towards your preferred ideologies.
And again, if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich.
The validity of your argument is irrelevant when your premise never actually occurs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something for all you multiparty people to chew on.
To be elected President you need to win an absolute majority of electoral votes. Not the most vote (a simple majority) but an absolute one. That's where the 270 votes comes from.
If no one gets 270 electoral votes the House gets to pick from the three highest scoring candidates.
So if you got your wish of lots of parties able to pull meaningful electoral results you'd actually have a pretty good shot at seeing less democracy then we see now.
So be it, I guess. This is the system we have, and we have to use what we have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HUUUGE Secret revealed: how EXTREME vetting will work!
*looks at paws. Looks at citizenship test*
Dammit.
HUUUGE Secret revealed: how EXTREME vetting will work!
It's Trump. For all we know, he might literally mean making sure refugees get distemper/parvo vaccinations, be trained to obey dog-whistles, and then wear the Cone of Shame.
... I don't *like* that we have a two party system, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.I'm too lazy to create a Tyler Durden Alias, but I just have to bring up the quote: "And how's that working out for you?"
Do you like your choice of candidates for president?
Do you think the US government does a good job of dealing with foreign and domestic issues?
Do you think the government is getting better or worse?
After 4 or 8 years of more-of-the-same, are your choices going to improve, or get worse? How much longer before the system fails? (If you consider the current situation success)
The usual answers point to the need for serious changes. BOTH candidates want to bring the country backward, or essentially maintain the status quo. Anyone who tells me I have to vote for one or the other, is essentially saying that maybe if we try the same thing yet again, we will get different results, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In order:
I like one of my choices, but I've been fully expecting to vote for Hillary for President since before I was old enough to vote.
I do think the Us government does a pretty good job, there's room to improve of course, but it's not the worst.
I think the government is, slowly, getting better. We're now at least saying that people should be treated like people. As opposed to our previous, only some people count attitude.
Assuming 8 yrs of the same, my choices are likely to get better. It's literally impossible to determine how long before the system fails, nobody has anything even approaching an educated guess, wild numbers with no backing is all anybody can answer that with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Opinion: Part of Trump's latest campaign shakeup basically involves giving him a babysitter.
goblin babies think this is the Worst. Remake. Ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... GET OUT OF MY BRAIN
Yeah...the Breitbart support suggests Trump is probably going to just double down on what he has been doing the last few weeks. We will see how many more teleprompter speeches occur post transition
Like I implied before, I think Trump wants the fame of the presidency, not the actual job. He enjoys the attention, and his normal mode of speaking at rallies does a better job of that. Even if at the same time it's driving off moderates and even regular republicans in droves, while scaring the crap out of people who don't like Hillary and probably wouldn't show up election day if Trump wasn't around.
...the only prospect more terrifying than voting for Hillary Clinton is not voting for her.
That's a direct quote from the guy that wrote the speech for the mother that spoke at the RNC.
HUUUGE Secret revealed: how EXTREME vetting will work!It's Trump. For all we know, he might literally mean making sure refugees get distemper/parvo vaccinations, be trained to obey dog-whistles, and then wear the Cone of Shame.
Or we trap them in rigged Porta Potties.
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed.So... progressivism?
Granted, neither term actually means what you say, but 'progressives' have actively supported those ideals for decades (always?) while 'conservatives' have actively opposed them.
Once upon a time (before I was old enough to vote in reality) one could be both a conservative AND a progressive.
For example, Nixon (yes, Nixon!) was the president when the following things were created.
Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Endangered Species Act
Earned Income Tax Credit
OSHA
Equal Employment Opportunity ActHe also ended dumping in the Great Lakes, required federal contractors to use affirmative action, passed the SALT treaty, proposed a universal health insurance mandate (killed by Ted Kennedy for not being liberal enough) and as vice president cast the tie-breaking vote to strengthen black voting rights in the Southern US (JFK's vote was for Jim Crow) in 1959.
He was also a paranoid racist willing to play upon the public's worst instincts, but that's the part everyone remembers.
That and those minor bits about a breakin at psychiatrist's office and sabotaging the 1968 Paris accords so that the Democrats would not get a poltical victory by ending the Vietnam war.
Just going to leave this here
Clinton is more than twice as likely to win Texas than Trump is to win the election.
I'll repeat - Trump winning the election would be way more surprising than a Democrat winning the state of Texas.
Yee haw.
Under the current odds, anyway - that's likely to change somewhat by the time November arrives, though how much it changes is less certain. XD
Yes, they expect things to tighten up as the election gets closer.