• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.

tl;dr politics. duh. obama's a muslim and hillary started it. How do you not get this? :rolleyes:

Cogent argument and facts are sometimes just a waste of your time. All of this can be dismissed simply by saying that Hillary is a suspicious character and that someone is being scapegoated on her behalf. There are plenty of serious republicans who know that the birther ct is exactly that. Those are not what make up the bulk of Trump's support base. They won't waiver. Trump knows, in what to me is a surprising indication that he's actually listening to advisors, that he needs to reach beyond the gravel-brained.
 
Given we are looking at the very real possibility of a political catastrophe, I am really finding your flippant attitude toward everything very annoying. Time to get serious.
Please elaborate, because none of that post makes ANY sense!
 
Yeah, **** rules! Rules are for pussies. Real men don't need no rules, right?

Why don't you stop saying nonsense.

Rules like: you need to talk about policy specifics and can't have any help. :confused: A POTUS candidate shouldn't be subjected to these kinds of ridiculous conditions. Particularly when being interviewed by someone like a basketball team owner who has obvious advantages in policy knowledge.

Trump will now effectively admit that $10mil for charity is not worth the 4 hours of his time (which, i expect, is a time period deliberately chosen to demonstrate Trump's horrific attention span)
 
Last edited:
Trump says Obama born in USA, Hilary started the birther controversy in 2008 and he has finished it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37389180
They do a good job of pointing out The Trumpet's current lies.

Is it the BBCs job to 'rebut' him?
Well presenting accurate news does require pointing oiut when he's lying.

It's hard to answer that question because here are the list of things that led to that price hike I oppose

FDA
Intellectual property /patents
Incorporation

Greed.
No charge for the fix.
 
How would that effect a product already on the market?
The wouldn't really. Some people insist on filtering reality through their ideology.

More generic versions could be available if they didn't have to prove to the FDA that they complied with the regulations.

Also, there are substitutes that the FDA does not allow pharmacies to substitute in.
More libertarian nonsense.
 
Except the large, brand name company can lower its price low enough and take the hit long enough to drive the competition out, and then jack the price back up again. See Wal-Mart and to a lesser extent, Starbucks.

In short, you're still wrong. But this thread is about Junior. If you need folks to explain business, government, and markets, you should try another thread.
Don't expect a libertarian to accept mere facts when they conflict with the One True Way.

Lol

Well, that is true. He did cause Obama to release it.
Untrue.

Kinda pathetic, but what else has the Trumpet got left?
 
The wouldn't really. Some people insist on filtering reality through their ideology.


More libertarian nonsense.

The libertarian nonsense is saying it is a good thing. The fact that without the FDA alternatives would be cheaper to come by is not.
 
They do a good job of pointing out The Trumpet's current lies.


Well presenting accurate news does require pointing oiut when he's lying.


No charge for the fix.

Greed is responsible for prices going up and going down. We can structure our laws so it does the former, but I would prefer to set it up so it does the latter.
 
The libertarian nonsense is saying it is a good thing. The fact that without the FDA alternatives would be cheaper to come by is not.

The FDA and patents certainly do restrict alternatives.

But the FDA requires testing to show that an alternative is functionally equivalent. All this talk about how there would be more alternatives, if not for the FDA, is silly, unless we know that the alternatives would do what they are supposed to do (without doing things that they really should not do).

Your criticism is silly. Requiring rigorous testing is a good thing. It increases the cost of entering the market, and so restricts alternatives, but it does so in order to ensure that consumers will get what they actually need.

(Patents, meanwhile, don't restrict actual alternatives, but restrict who can sell the particular drug in question for particular purposes.)

Hey, I have Libertarian leanings, but anyone complaining that the FDA is unnecessary goes rather too far in my book.
 
Apparently US pre$$titutes and the Killary Kampaign have made some fuss about Trump appearing on RT to talk with the evil Russian propagandist ... uhm, Larry King. Here's the full interview for the record (you know, primary sources n stuff):

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom