Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 706588 times)

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7500 on: June 26, 2019, 06:37:48 PM »
Fair enough.  To the original question, should the developed world contribute to vaccine development or just the US?
https://www.thebetterindia.com/129080/rotovac-indias-first-completely-indigenous-vaccine-who-pre-qualification/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7501 on: June 26, 2019, 06:39:21 PM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

I'm really struggling to understand what you want.  Please lay out the option that you're supporting here:
- The current capitalist system as it stands where the US doesn't develop/produce drugs, private companies do (many of them in America) and then are free to charge whatever they want for 'em to whoever they want
- A more socialist system where the US people (I assume through the government?) develop/produce drugs so that they can better control the prices that US citizens are charged

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7502 on: June 27, 2019, 08:03:08 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

I'm really struggling to understand what you want.  Please lay out the option that you're supporting here:
- The current capitalist system as it stands where the US doesn't develop/produce drugs, private companies do (many of them in America) and then are free to charge whatever they want for 'em to whoever they want
- A more socialist system where the US people (I assume through the government?) develop/produce drugs so that they can better control the prices that US citizens are charged

None of the above.  I think drug companies need to be reasonable incentives to create these drugs and when they are successful a reasonable worldwide profit.  In the case of the HEP C drug, if the patent holder can't expect a reasonable profit in India, they make up the margins in other countries.  Part of the reason the drug is so cheap in India is they were going to ignore the patent.  That leaves other countries picking up the tab for the R&D on the drug.

I haven't studied their financials, but $80k per treatment seems completely insane and India's position seems unreasonable as well.

One thing I want to be clear about, I think there needs to be some reform in the US system as well.  Drug companies are gaming IP law.  Exec's are price fixing old drugs.  I'm not saying the US is blameless, but I think there are many other factors as well.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7503 on: June 27, 2019, 08:30:20 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

Agreed.  But you've been acting as though the world owes America a debt of gratitude simply for being the scrap of land that private companies have developed things on.  Which is a little weird.


I'm really struggling to understand what you want.  Please lay out the option that you're supporting here:
- The current capitalist system as it stands where the US doesn't develop/produce drugs, private companies do (many of them in America) and then are free to charge whatever they want for 'em to whoever they want
- A more socialist system where the US people (I assume through the government?) develop/produce drugs so that they can better control the prices that US citizens are charged

None of the above.  I think drug companies need to be reasonable incentives to create these drugs and when they are successful a reasonable worldwide profit.  In the case of the HEP C drug, if the patent holder can't expect a reasonable profit in India, they make up the margins in other countries.  Part of the reason the drug is so cheap in India is they were going to ignore the patent.  That leaves other countries picking up the tab for the R&D on the drug.

I haven't studied their financials, but $80k per treatment seems completely insane and India's position seems unreasonable as well.

One thing I want to be clear about, I think there needs to be some reform in the US system as well.  Drug companies are gaming IP law.  Exec's are price fixing old drugs.  I'm not saying the US is blameless, but I think there are many other factors as well.

OK, but you realize that this control you want the US government to have cannot happen unless it owns the rights to these drugs right?  If you don't nationalize the drug companies or have the government develop these drugs, the people will never have a say in pricing because they won't have control over decisions made by the companies.

You have no sovereignty over the legal systems of countries, just as they have no sovereignty over what the US does.  Even when what is done is clearly wrong.  Like when the US orders the detention of, say, an important Chinese national, and then later on Trump says that he'll dismiss her legal case as a bargaining chip for trade negotiations.

In the case you describe, the US government could apply pressure regarding IP through trade I suppose . . . but as current US policy is to have no identifiable policy and seems to be intent on starting as many fights as possible at whim, I'm not sure how effective diplomacy would actually be at this point with the Trump administration.  This is an administration that has (in multiple instances) pulled out of negotiated deals that all parties were correctly abiding by in order to half-assedly fail at renegotiation later on.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7504 on: June 27, 2019, 09:42:12 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

Agreed.  But you've been acting as though the world owes America a debt of gratitude simply for being the scrap of land that private companies have developed things on.  Which is a little weird.

I would say the world owes the developer of the drug or any IP a reasonable return whether the developer is US based or not if they want the drug/IP within a reasonable period.  I would have the same view if the drug were developed in Canada BTW.

I'm really struggling to understand what you want.  Please lay out the option that you're supporting here:
- The current capitalist system as it stands where the US doesn't develop/produce drugs, private companies do (many of them in America) and then are free to charge whatever they want for 'em to whoever they want
- A more socialist system where the US people (I assume through the government?) develop/produce drugs so that they can better control the prices that US citizens are charged

None of the above.  I think drug companies need to be reasonable incentives to create these drugs and when they are successful a reasonable worldwide profit.  In the case of the HEP C drug, if the patent holder can't expect a reasonable profit in India, they make up the margins in other countries.  Part of the reason the drug is so cheap in India is they were going to ignore the patent.  That leaves other countries picking up the tab for the R&D on the drug.

I haven't studied their financials, but $80k per treatment seems completely insane and India's position seems unreasonable as well.

One thing I want to be clear about, I think there needs to be some reform in the US system as well.  Drug companies are gaming IP law.  Exec's are price fixing old drugs.  I'm not saying the US is blameless, but I think there are many other factors as well.

OK, but you realize that this control you want the US government to have cannot happen unless it owns the rights to these drugs right?  If you don't nationalize the drug companies or have the government develop these drugs, the people will never have a say in pricing because they won't have control over decisions made by the companies.

You have no sovereignty over the legal systems of countries, just as they have no sovereignty over what the US does.  Even when what is done is clearly wrong.  Like when the US orders the detention of, say, an important Chinese national, and then later on Trump says that he'll dismiss her legal case as a bargaining chip for trade negotiations.

In the case you describe, the US government could apply pressure regarding IP through trade I suppose . . . but as current US policy is to have no identifiable policy and seems to be intent on starting as many fights as possible at whim, I'm not sure how effective diplomacy would actually be at this point with the Trump administration.  This is an administration that has (in multiple instances) pulled out of negotiated deals that all parties were correctly abiding by in order to half-assedly fail at renegotiation later on.

The US doesn't need to nationalize the drug companies nor would that be advisable for the US or the world.  There are many other directions the US could take to impact these companies within the US.  Examples a) Change IP law in the US to get generics on the market sooner if companies are gaming the system b) Jail time for exec's price fixing old drugs and c) consider allowing drugs to be imported from other countries thus encouraging more of a level worldwide price.   This is not a complete list nor is it meant to be.

As to the market outside the US, the US (and 1st world countries) can certainly apply pressure to countries taking an unreasonable position on trade/IP.  If India doesn't respect IP of other countries, it will ultimately hinder their development in the long term as they develop more and more of their own IP.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7505 on: June 27, 2019, 09:58:03 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

Agreed.  But you've been acting as though the world owes America a debt of gratitude simply for being the scrap of land that private companies have developed things on.  Which is a little weird.

I would say the world owes the developer of the drug or any IP a reasonable return whether the developer is US based or not if they want the drug/IP within a reasonable period.  I would have the same view if the drug were developed in Canada BTW.

So many questions about this come to mind.

- Why do you believe that the world owes the developer of the drug more than they can get in the free market?

- What is the exact amount that the world owes drug companies?  How would that even work?  Should it be calculated and paid per life saved, per drug administered or something else?

- If the drug causes accidental and horrific side effects (like say, thalidimide did) does the drug company owe the world for the damages it causes?

- Is this only for drugs?  What about other useful things that have been adopted the world over?  We use the Arabic numeric system.  How much does America pay in licensing fees for this incredibly handy tool?

:P


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10329
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7506 on: June 27, 2019, 10:06:59 AM »
@Midwest - you are conflating research and developing vaccines to prevent illnesses with drug treatments meant to treat diseases.  Understand they are not the same thing.

Fair enough.  To the original question, should the developed world contribute to vaccine development or just the US?  How should it be funded?

I believe I answered that earlier - we can't rely on for-profit companies to develop vaccines because they are inherently less profitable (and often not profitable at all) to develop than treating existing ailments. Ergo, funding is typically carried out through the public sector, either directly (e.g. via the NIH and CDC) or through federal grants to dozens of research laboratories (who often work with industry partners, and increasingly with global partners in other countries).  This is our current model, and I'd merely argue that we are severely underfunding such projects - to our own detriment.  Developing preventative medicine - while not profitable from the corporate perspective - has one of the greatest ROI at a population level (fewer deaths, more worker output, lower healthcare costs, multiplied across the entire population or millions or billions).

As for 'who should pay for R&D - like guitarstv you've got my scratching my head here... you seem to be coming from the perspective that the rest of the world is ripping off the United States, rather than the US being a global leader for medicine. You can view that negatively or you can view it positively. One of the core reasons why so many of the worlds most successful Rx companies are US companies is because we've maintained a deep research pipeline. This pipeline trains and attracts some of the best and brightest, who overwhelmingly stay in the US as highly paid individuals, thereby stimulating our economy.  Just look at the Y/Y gains int he Rx sector for the last 6 decades. 

The other factor you seem to be overlooking is that the funding source (i.e. the US Government) dictates which diseases get funding.  It's very self serving.  You'll notice that  we spend a great deal of money on irradicating or treating 'western diseases' (e.g. MMR,  Meningococcal), but far less on more tropical diseases like malaria - even though malaria infects and kill way more people globally.  If you want India (for example) to suddenly start contributing more towards the R&D of treatments they're going to naturally require more focus be on diseases that impact Indians and less on ones that kill people in the lower 48.

I'm suggesting that India's lack of IP protections may be allowing for price that does virtually nothing to contribute to the cost of developing the drug.  India's economy is developing and they need to respect patents/IP of other countries. 

There's no need for a UN entity.  Developed nations should bring pressure to bear on countries with weak IP protections.  The WSJ article I tagged discussed how India is hurting the EU and itself.
Yes, we all want a level playing field, but there's a lot of scope in the phrase "bring pressure to bear" on other countries.  That could mean trade partnerships with mutually agreed upon rules and standards, or it could mean bombing them until they submit to our superior force.  Because we're dealing with foreign diplomacy nothing will remain in a vacuum.  Do we give them vaccines for free (which we often do) under 'humanitarian aid' in a gesture of good faith ("soft power") and eliminating millions of deaths with the hopes that we will develop an ally and trading partner?  Since we're already developing these treatments for our own benefit and the cost of additional production is typically very low this seems like a rather cheap way of extending our global interests. And of course there's the reality that there's only a few countries which have the resources and capacity to make the long-term investments in advanced medicine.  Most of the largest economies (e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, UK, France, etc) are the ones making these investments.  India is rather unique among the G8 in having the largest percentage of their population in poverty.  in other words, while they have a lot of financial resources, they have the most societal problems of any major nation. I'm all for India updating their IP policies - and as you noted doing so will ultimately help India - but it's pretty far down their list of national concerns.



Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7507 on: June 27, 2019, 10:10:53 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

Agreed.  But you've been acting as though the world owes America a debt of gratitude simply for being the scrap of land that private companies have developed things on.  Which is a little weird.

I would say the world owes the developer of the drug or any IP a reasonable return whether the developer is US based or not if they want the drug/IP within a reasonable period.  I would have the same view if the drug were developed in Canada BTW.

So many questions about this come to mind.

- Why do you believe that the world owes the developer of the drug more than they can get in the free market?

- What is the exact amount that the world owes drug companies?  How would that even work?  Should it be calculated and paid per life saved, per drug administered or something else?

- If the drug causes accidental and horrific side effects (like say, thalidimide did) does the drug company owe the world for the damages it causes?

- Is this only for drugs?  What about other useful things that have been adopted the world over?  We use the Arabic numeric system.  How much does America pay in licensing fees for this incredibly handy tool?

:P

Really not that hard to answer.  IP typically has protections for a specific time period and the free market decides what you get during that time period (they buy it or they don't).  When a country is completely out of step with IP protections in the world  (ie India in this case), the IP holder loses part of their return.  That's why IP enforcement is important.

As to the liability, their are liability laws. 

IP applies to many things and has a time limit.  I think the time limit has expired on the the Arabic numbering system by quite a bit.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7508 on: June 27, 2019, 10:25:08 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

Agreed.  But you've been acting as though the world owes America a debt of gratitude simply for being the scrap of land that private companies have developed things on.  Which is a little weird.

I would say the world owes the developer of the drug or any IP a reasonable return whether the developer is US based or not if they want the drug/IP within a reasonable period.  I would have the same view if the drug were developed in Canada BTW.

So many questions about this come to mind.

- Why do you believe that the world owes the developer of the drug more than they can get in the free market?

- What is the exact amount that the world owes drug companies?  How would that even work?  Should it be calculated and paid per life saved, per drug administered or something else?

- If the drug causes accidental and horrific side effects (like say, thalidimide did) does the drug company owe the world for the damages it causes?

- Is this only for drugs?  What about other useful things that have been adopted the world over?  We use the Arabic numeric system.  How much does America pay in licensing fees for this incredibly handy tool?

:P

Really not that hard to answer.  IP typically has protections for a specific time period and the free market decides what you get during that time period (they buy it or they don't).  When a country is completely out of step with IP protections in the world  (ie India in this case), the IP holder loses part of their return.  That's why IP enforcement is important.

As to the liability, their are liability laws. 

IP applies to many things and has a time limit.  I think the time limit has expired on the the Arabic numbering system by quite a bit.

IP stands in opposition to a free market.  It's wholly government created and enforced.  When America is out of step with a government, the IP holder gains returns that the free market would otherwise not support.

When talking about enforcing IP across borders and countries you seem pretty hellbent on going with US IP limits.  That is fraught with problems.  The US has been steadily increasing IP terms for Disney's cartoon works for example, and there's every reason to expect that this will continue in perpetuity.  Why should other countries not be able to set their own ridiculous limits as well?  Why should the ridiculous limits that the US sets be accepted by the rest of the world?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7509 on: June 27, 2019, 10:44:55 AM »
@Midwest - you are conflating research and developing vaccines to prevent illnesses with drug treatments meant to treat diseases.  Understand they are not the same thing.

Fair enough.  To the original question, should the developed world contribute to vaccine development or just the US?  How should it be funded?

I believe I answered that earlier - we can't rely on for-profit companies to develop vaccines because they are inherently less profitable (and often not profitable at all) to develop than treating existing ailments. Ergo, funding is typically carried out through the public sector, either directly (e.g. via the NIH and CDC) or through federal grants to dozens of research laboratories (who often work with industry partners, and increasingly with global partners in other countries).  This is our current model, and I'd merely argue that we are severely underfunding such projects - to our own detriment.  Developing preventative medicine - while not profitable from the corporate perspective - has one of the greatest ROI at a population level (fewer deaths, more worker output, lower healthcare costs, multiplied across the entire population or millions or billions).

As for 'who should pay for R&D - like guitarstv you've got my scratching my head here... you seem to be coming from the perspective that the rest of the world is ripping off the United States, rather than the US being a global leader for medicine. You can view that negatively or you can view it positively. One of the core reasons why so many of the worlds most successful Rx companies are US companies is because we've maintained a deep research pipeline. This pipeline trains and attracts some of the best and brightest, who overwhelmingly stay in the US as highly paid individuals, thereby stimulating our economy.  Just look at the Y/Y gains int he Rx sector for the last 6 decades. 

The other factor you seem to be overlooking is that the funding source (i.e. the US Government) dictates which diseases get funding.  It's very self serving.  You'll notice that  we spend a great deal of money on irradicating or treating 'western diseases' (e.g. MMR,  Meningococcal), but far less on more tropical diseases like malaria - even though malaria infects and kill way more people globally.  If you want India (for example) to suddenly start contributing more towards the R&D of treatments they're going to naturally require more focus be on diseases that impact Indians and less on ones that kill people in the lower 48.

Great answer and what I was asking.  I do think in some instances the world expect the US to pay while they to benefit which hurts US citizens.  Clearly that's not universally true.

I'm suggesting that India's lack of IP protections may be allowing for price that does virtually nothing to contribute to the cost of developing the drug.  India's economy is developing and they need to respect patents/IP of other countries. 

There's no need for a UN entity.  Developed nations should bring pressure to bear on countries with weak IP protections.  The WSJ article I tagged discussed how India is hurting the EU and itself.
Yes, we all want a level playing field, but there's a lot of scope in the phrase "bring pressure to bear" on other countries.  That could mean trade partnerships with mutually agreed upon rules and standards, or it could mean bombing them until they submit to our superior force.  Because we're dealing with foreign diplomacy nothing will remain in a vacuum.  Do we give them vaccines for free (which we often do) under 'humanitarian aid' in a gesture of good faith ("soft power") and eliminating millions of deaths with the hopes that we will develop an ally and trading partner?  Since we're already developing these treatments for our own benefit and the cost of additional production is typically very low this seems like a rather cheap way of extending our global interests. And of course there's the reality that there's only a few countries which have the resources and capacity to make the long-term investments in advanced medicine.  Most of the largest economies (e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, UK, France, etc) are the ones making these investments.  India is rather unique among the G8 in having the largest percentage of their population in poverty.  in other words, while they have a lot of financial resources, they have the most societal problems of any major nation. I'm all for India updating their IP policies - and as you noted doing so will ultimately help India - but it's pretty far down their list of national concerns.

Again, excellent answer.  I'm only advocating for some pressure on India to adopt reasonable IP policies.  Frankly I'm not advocating for India to pay the same ridiculous price the US pays but a cost of 80x more in the US seems like an unfair burden.

If when doing the research on the financial viability of the drug, the drugmaker knew India's IP laws were reasonable and there is a huge market there maybe the cost in the US (and other countries) goes down and India's goes up some.

If the US were to allow for imports of drugs from other countries, it would certainly level the playing field for US residents.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7510 on: June 27, 2019, 10:50:31 AM »
If these developments aren't funded, there won't be anything to share.  It would be wonderful if these drugs were free.  Unfortunately, society has to pay to develop and produce these drugs.  Production is typically a small part of the equation.

Neither "society", nor the American people pay significantly to develop and produce the drugs that you seem to be upset about though.  It's largely done through privately owned business and private capital.  Then the privately owned businesses charge the American people as much as they can to recoup their losses.

Society (US and otherwise) pays those companies once those drugs are produced.  Those privately owned businesses wouldn't produce the drugs otherwise.

Agreed.  But you've been acting as though the world owes America a debt of gratitude simply for being the scrap of land that private companies have developed things on.  Which is a little weird.

I would say the world owes the developer of the drug or any IP a reasonable return whether the developer is US based or not if they want the drug/IP within a reasonable period.  I would have the same view if the drug were developed in Canada BTW.

So many questions about this come to mind.

- Why do you believe that the world owes the developer of the drug more than they can get in the free market?

- What is the exact amount that the world owes drug companies?  How would that even work?  Should it be calculated and paid per life saved, per drug administered or something else?

- If the drug causes accidental and horrific side effects (like say, thalidimide did) does the drug company owe the world for the damages it causes?

- Is this only for drugs?  What about other useful things that have been adopted the world over?  We use the Arabic numeric system.  How much does America pay in licensing fees for this incredibly handy tool?

:P

Really not that hard to answer.  IP typically has protections for a specific time period and the free market decides what you get during that time period (they buy it or they don't).  When a country is completely out of step with IP protections in the world  (ie India in this case), the IP holder loses part of their return.  That's why IP enforcement is important.

As to the liability, their are liability laws. 

IP applies to many things and has a time limit.  I think the time limit has expired on the the Arabic numbering system by quite a bit.

IP stands in opposition to a free market.  It's wholly government created and enforced.  When America is out of step with a government, the IP holder gains returns that the free market would otherwise not support.

When talking about enforcing IP across borders and countries you seem pretty hellbent on going with US IP limits.  That is fraught with problems.  The US has been steadily increasing IP terms for Disney's cartoon works for example, and there's every reason to expect that this will continue in perpetuity.  Why should other countries not be able to set their own ridiculous limits as well?  Why should the ridiculous limits that the US sets be accepted by the rest of the world?

I've never advocated for US IP laws across the world.  I suggested reasonable IP protections in step with the rest of the developed world which India does not have.  In fact, I specifically mentioned reform in the US.  This would include IP. 

Disney is an excellent example of problems with US IP law but not relevant to a newly developed drug such as the HEP C virus.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7511 on: June 27, 2019, 10:52:46 AM »
In that case, what you're suggesting sounds reasonable to me.  How do you envision it's implementation?  Through the UN?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7512 on: June 27, 2019, 11:03:17 AM »
In that case, what you're suggesting sounds reasonable to me.  How do you envision it's implementation?  Through the UN?

Trade pressure and diplomacy from the US and developed nations.  The US isn't alone in this issue with India on IP. 

For instance, I'm sure India would prefer the US not sell certain military items to it's neighbors.  That may or may not make sense for the US, but to argue the world can't bring diplomatic and trade pressure on India is unrealistic.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7513 on: June 27, 2019, 11:06:41 AM »
So if India doesn't capitulate regarding IP you want to sell arms to Pakistan?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7514 on: June 27, 2019, 11:26:10 AM »
So if India doesn't capitulate regarding IP you want to sell arms to Pakistan?

The US already has been.  That was an F-16 that shot down the Indian plane.  That may have been a violation of the terms of the sale.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7515 on: June 27, 2019, 11:38:03 AM »
Geeze. . .  It's like the US doesn't remember that Pakistan was providing safe harbour to Osama for years after 9/11.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10329
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7516 on: June 27, 2019, 12:28:29 PM »
The following may help put this discussion over public R&D funds into perspective:

NIH's budget (FY2017) was $31.3B, by far the largest discretionary line within HHS (HHS has a discretionary budget of $87B - over 90% of its $1T in funding goes towards mandatory programs, the largest being Medicare and Medicaid: the CDC has a budget of $11.5B)
The Federal budget is $4,746B (of which $1,400B is discretionary funding)

From the HHS website: 
Quote
In FY 2016, NIH estimates it will support a total of 35,447 research project grants, including over 10,000 new and competing awards...  Today, it is the largest source of multidisciplinary funding for biomedical and behavioral research in the world. NIHís  In FY 2016, about 83 percent [$25B] of the funds appropriated to NIH will flow out to the extramural community, which supports work by more than 300,000 research personnel at over 2,500 organizations, including universities, medical schools, hospitals, and other research facilities

The NIH spends most of its budget supporting research on: Clinical Trials ($13.8B), Aging ($4.1B), Prevention ($8.7B) Biotech ($6.9B), Cancer ($6.3B), , Behavior/Social ($5.1B), Bioengineering ($4.6B), 
 Women's Health ($5B), Pediatric ($4.5B), Alzheimer's ($3.6B).*
I could not get an actual breakdown of the amount spent on developing vaccines (and I'm not sure such a breakdown exists) - but it seems to be in the $2B-5B range.

*Per the NIH's website: The research categories are not mutually exclusive. Individual research projects can be included in multiple categories so amounts depicted within each column of this table do not add up to 100 percent of NIH-funded research.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 12:53:57 PM by nereo »

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3884
  • Age: 28
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7517 on: June 27, 2019, 12:29:01 PM »
Geeze. . .  It's like the US doesn't remember that Pakistan was providing safe harbour to Osama for years after 9/11.
You mean that guy that was part of the group the US sent billions to in the 80s to help fight the Soviets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7518 on: June 27, 2019, 12:48:50 PM »
Geeze. . .  It's like the US doesn't remember that Pakistan was providing safe harbour to Osama for years after 9/11.
You mean that guy that was part of the group the US sent billions to in the 80s to help fight the Soviets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

It's almost like you're trying to say that there are consequences for dealing arms willy-nilly across the globe.  :P

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8492
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7519 on: June 27, 2019, 01:44:18 PM »
It's almost like you're trying to say that there are consequences for dealing arms willy-nilly across the globe.  :P

Forget the rest of the globe.  The NRA has taught as that the only way to make us safe is to make sure EVERYONE is armed.  Remember "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"?  I'm sure that applies to dealing arms to India and Pakistan just as much as it does to selling ARs to everyone in the trailer park so that they won't rob each other.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7520 on: June 27, 2019, 05:01:55 PM »
Trailer park?!?   Are you nuts?    We're talking about giving AR's to every kid in high school!   That'll stop the high school shootings.

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Here & There
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7521 on: June 27, 2019, 05:06:20 PM »
We were just trying to get beer, weed, and babes in high school.  We might get in a fight sometimes, but never considered needing guns to settle things.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10329
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7522 on: June 27, 2019, 05:39:32 PM »
We were just trying to get beer, weed, and babes in high school.  We might get in a fight sometimes, but never considered needing guns to settle things.
weed seems far more effective at reducing mass shootings than "more guns".
Maybe the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to give him lots of weed?

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7523 on: June 29, 2019, 07:05:48 AM »
I've never advocated for US IP laws across the world.  I suggested reasonable IP protections in step with the rest of the developed world which India does not have.

Reasonable as in no IP laws?

Quote
Maybe the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to give him lots of weed?
The only reliable way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to prevent him getting a gun. If he does not have one, he can't be a bad guy with a gun.
That's purest logic!

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7524 on: June 29, 2019, 07:46:57 AM »
How do you stop a bad guy (or gal) with a knife? With an airplane?  With a vehicle? With bare hands?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7525 on: June 29, 2019, 07:50:01 AM »
It's almost like you're trying to say that there are consequences for dealing arms willy-nilly across the globe.  :P

Forget the rest of the globe.  The NRA has taught as that the only way to make us safe is to make sure EVERYONE is armed.  Remember "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"?  I'm sure that applies to dealing arms to India and Pakistan just as much as it does to selling ARs to everyone in the trailer park so that they won't rob each other.

You're exaggerating.  A lot of pro-gun people believe in the sheep and the sheepdog. Not everyone needs to be a sheepdog.

https://www.policeone.com/police-products/training-products/articles/1709289-Book-Excerpt-On-Sheep-Wolves-and-Sheepdogs/

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7526 on: June 29, 2019, 07:53:39 AM »
I've never advocated for US IP laws across the world.  I suggested reasonable IP protections in step with the rest of the developed world which India does not have.

Reasonable as in no IP laws?

Quote
Maybe the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to give him lots of weed?
The only reliable way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to prevent him getting a gun. If he does not have one, he can't be a bad guy with a gun.
That's purest logic!

No IP law would be bad policy. 

I didn't make the 2nd quote.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 08:43:28 AM by Midwest »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8492
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7527 on: June 29, 2019, 01:38:09 PM »
You're exaggerating.  A lot of pro-gun people believe in the sheep and the sheepdog. Not everyone needs to be a sheepdog.

Which middle eastern country that we're selling arms to is the sheepdog, in this analogy? 

Because we're apparently arming all of them, taking turns over the decades so they all get their fair share of warfighting tools, and I don't see how this is helping.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7528 on: June 29, 2019, 03:00:17 PM »
How do you stop a bad guy (or gal) with a knife? With an airplane?  With a vehicle? With bare hands?

If you can't shoot them, how about a baton?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7529 on: June 29, 2019, 05:59:40 PM »
How do you stop a bad guy (or gal) with a knife? With an airplane?  With a vehicle? With bare hands?

We bury them in our dead!

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10329
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7530 on: June 29, 2019, 06:26:49 PM »
You're exaggerating.  A lot of pro-gun people believe in the sheep and the sheepdog. Not everyone needs to be a sheepdog.

Which middle eastern country that we're selling arms to is the sheepdog, in this analogy? 

Because we're apparently arming all of them, taking turns over the decades so they all get their fair share of warfighting tools, and I don't see how this is helping.

Ingrained in the DoDís R&D budget is the profit we expect to make from selling our latest and greatest weapons systems.  Itís literally used as a justification on the multi-billion outlay for countless projects. The F-35 JST? We were hoping to sell literally thousands of them by now, providing a windfall of profits to the dozen different companies deeply involved in their development and manufacture.  Apparently that was too rosy a sales picture and after considerable delays weíve sold something like 300 so far to a dozen different nations (mostly to Japan).

THereís an even bigger market for the parts to those systems, which were intentionally designed to be so non-user serviceable that the militaries of other countries are perpetually relying on us to supply them with new fan-blade assemblies and the like.

Just in the last twenty years in the Middle East alone weíve supplied heavy weapon systems to Saudi Arabia, the UAE,  Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and Turkey.  Fully half of all US weapon sales go to that region. 

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7531 on: June 29, 2019, 08:45:51 PM »
Because we're apparently arming all of them, taking turns over the decades so they all get their fair share of warfighting tools, and I don't see how this is helping.
I wouldn't say you're taking turns over the decades, hell, you've often sold weapons to both sides during a war, let alone before one.

As for whether it's "helping", that depends on what your goals are. You seem to be assuming the US government is a beauty pageant contestant and wants world peace.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4272
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7532 on: June 30, 2019, 01:34:00 AM »
Because we're apparently arming all of them, taking turns over the decades so they all get their fair share of warfighting tools, and I don't see how this is helping.
I wouldn't say you're taking turns over the decades, hell, you've often sold weapons to both sides during a war, let alone before one.

My great uncle who was a gun runner in the Spanish Civil War told me that selling arms to both sides at the same time was the safest way to do it - they'll shoot at each other rather than you.  Mostly.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10329
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7533 on: June 30, 2019, 06:53:43 AM »
Because we're apparently arming all of them, taking turns over the decades so they all get their fair share of warfighting tools, and I don't see how this is helping.
I wouldn't say you're taking turns over the decades, hell, you've often sold weapons to both sides during a war, let alone before one.

As for whether it's "helping", that depends on what your goals are. You seem to be assuming the US government is a beauty pageant contestant and wants world peace.

As I said, they're seen as goods available to earn profits, much in the same way that cars or tractors are, and they're designed and sold with the explicit expectation that they will be reliant on us for parts and services.  We sold about $190B last year alone.  When viewed from that lens, it doesn't matter much who we are selling too, and even if we're selling to both sides simultaneously.  And by making entire regions reliant on one weapons 'ecosystem' - of which we are the sole provider of parts - it creates a disincentive for open conflict. FWIW, Australia is a decades-long repeat customer.

Defense contractors would say it's a feature, not a bug, of our industro-military complex.

kendallf

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7534 on: July 01, 2019, 07:42:12 AM »
Because we're apparently arming all of them, taking turns over the decades so they all get their fair share of warfighting tools, and I don't see how this is helping.
I wouldn't say you're taking turns over the decades, hell, you've often sold weapons to both sides during a war, let alone before one.

As for whether it's "helping", that depends on what your goals are. You seem to be assuming the US government is a beauty pageant contestant and wants world peace.

As I said, they're seen as goods available to earn profits, much in the same way that cars or tractors are, and they're designed and sold with the explicit expectation that they will be reliant on us for parts and services.  We sold about $190B last year alone.  When viewed from that lens, it doesn't matter much who we are selling too, and even if we're selling to both sides simultaneously.  And by making entire regions reliant on one weapons 'ecosystem' - of which we are the sole provider of parts - it creates a disincentive for open conflict. FWIW, Australia is a decades-long repeat customer.

Defense contractors would say it's a feature, not a bug, of our industro-military complex.

I work in this area and it's simultaneously disheartening and reassuring that (A) we're selling the stuff we're selling and (B) how much US support it needs to function.  Kuwait, for example, has F/A-18s that are basically totally supported by US based contractors; we sell them gear, go over and set it up and do training, and then they hire a contractor to actually perform the work (often we'll train the contractor with a token presence from the FMS customer). 

For most of these countries, there is no funding for enough use for proficiency, and the requisite repair of not-very-reliable stuff you're using.  Pull out our support and they're paper tigers in a year.  Obviously I'm referring to more complex weapons systems like aircraft here; the spread of small arms are more of a problem.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7535 on: July 01, 2019, 11:59:23 AM »
Meanwhile on the Customs and Border Patrol front, here is a window into at least some of the workplace culture.

https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-facebook-group-agents-joke-about-migrant-deaths-post-sexist-memes?fbclid=IwAR0KgkfZXyZqDFN_sY4Ibuzx4u7bVrR4R2DBppuQNb_bQNIGNvfFimpHT6U

For reference, the facebook group cited in the article is reported to have 9,500 members while the CBP, as a whole, employs about 60,000 people. Not all in the facebook group likely belong to CBP, but even if it is half, then that is nearly 10% of the total employed.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7536 on: July 01, 2019, 05:53:35 PM »
Meanwhile on the Customs and Border Patrol front, here is a window into at least some of the workplace culture.

https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-facebook-group-agents-joke-about-migrant-deaths-post-sexist-memes?fbclid=IwAR0KgkfZXyZqDFN_sY4Ibuzx4u7bVrR4R2DBppuQNb_bQNIGNvfFimpHT6U

For reference, the facebook group cited in the article is reported to have 9,500 members while the CBP, as a whole, employs about 60,000 people. Not all in the facebook group likely belong to CBP, but even if it is half, then that is nearly 10% of the total employed.

That's not particularly surprising.  You don't become a border patrol agent because you have a healthy respect for the rights of migrants.  If you ended up a border agent with such and are given orders from higher up to perform malicious duties, you're likely to start searching for a new job.  The article is reporting tamer behavior than I'd expect in that environment, led by Trump.

Enigma

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 479
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Clarksville, TN
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7537 on: July 02, 2019, 12:14:10 PM »
DNC raises $7.9MM in May, RNC raises $14.6MM in May
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/dnc-rnc-fundraising-may/index.html
"I inherited nothing from the Democratic Party," Clinton said after the election. "I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it." Clinton went on to say that the RNC's data operation was "tried and true" with an "effective foundation."

Speculating on a Trump presidency.  I think they are positioned pretty well to control the media via campaign ads

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7538 on: July 02, 2019, 01:13:51 PM »
Comparing the DNC and RNC numbers without also noting the totals across all viable Presidential candidates doesn't seem to give the whole picture.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10329
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7539 on: July 02, 2019, 01:25:21 PM »
Comparing the DNC and RNC numbers without also noting the totals across all viable Presidential candidates doesn't seem to give the whole picture.
That's what I was thinking - right now Trump's the only realistic candidate on the RNC side, while there's 20+ on the Dem side of the ledger.  Most donors contributing to Democratic candidates are doing so directly to their campaigns, as the main goal for the next 6 months will be to 1) survive and 2) jockey themselves into holding double-digit support.

The real money won't start flowing until early 2020.  What we are witnessing is the pre-season, which says little about the playoffs.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2172
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7540 on: July 02, 2019, 10:22:22 PM »
So, for those of us that can't go to the Trump July 4th planned expenditure, do we get a refund on that tax / National Park money spent?

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7541 on: July 03, 2019, 07:28:06 AM »
I, too, have been trying to comprehend the changes to the Fourth of July celebration.

I think the best we can do is to simply ignore it. Do not join that crowd. Do not hype the event. I think Trump is setting a political trap to make criticism of him look unpatriotic.

Those of you who are old enough to remember George W. Bush will recognize this for what it is. Stay silent, and come back on July 5 ready to engage in substantial issues.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7542 on: July 03, 2019, 05:16:38 PM »

I wish I could go to the celebration - way too far for me.  I'll settle for something more local where I can be far enough away that I don't have to hear that blaring music they play along with the fireworks these days.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4183
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7543 on: July 03, 2019, 05:18:43 PM »
Itís horrifying. I canít believe that my tax dollars that are supposed to go to maintaining the national parks are instead going to a campaign rally for a person I abhor.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7544 on: July 03, 2019, 05:38:13 PM »
I wonder how many neo-nazis will be joining in?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9411
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7545 on: July 03, 2019, 07:01:05 PM »
I wonder how many neo-nazis will be joining in?
Perhaps fewer than the number of Antifas?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4183
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7546 on: July 03, 2019, 07:32:26 PM »
I wonder how many neo-nazis will be joining in?
Perhaps fewer than the number of Antifas?

Lol. Yeah. Thatís likely.

/s
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 08:22:13 AM by Kris »

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Here & There
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7547 on: July 04, 2019, 12:21:01 PM »
Trump's such a proud boy.  He just has to show off his toys. 








FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7548 on: July 04, 2019, 12:54:46 PM »
Trump's such a proud boy.  He just has to show off his toys.

Here we go:


KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7549 on: July 05, 2019, 02:12:48 AM »
Itís horrifying. I canít believe that my tax dollars that are supposed to go to maintaining the national parks are instead going to a campaign rally for a person I abhor.

I watched some video of the 4th celebration and thought it was fantastic. It wouldn't matter which president put it together, it was a wonderful acknowledgement of our military's history and strength today.  The choir and band were fantastic. A lot of appreciation for our military forces and the sacrifices Americans have made throughout history in defense of our country and in defense of freedom around the world.

The 4th of July is a patriotic holiday and it was a patriotic celebration.

Nothing about it was about Trump.  It was about showing respect for the American armed forces and their service to our country. Proud to be an American.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2019, 02:14:32 AM by KBecks »