In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 16 2016 02:39 IgnE wrote: Seems like something that's fairly debatable to me.
well not really, the information content is fairly irrelevant to how it would be as food.
Ehhh, not really. I mean, for like 99.999% of cases, you're right. But, theoretically you could just use plants merely a production vessel for a non-food specific protein, for whatever reason.
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
On March 16 2016 02:49 wei2coolman wrote: Trump probably doesn't even know who he was, nor had any reason to believe the journalist.
August 2015:
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
On March 16 2016 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote: the tomato patent is for the entire plant with a very specific characteristic developed in a very specific way, not for tomatoes in general. i'm okay with it from that angle. on the other hand, it does seem like a dumb thing to patent for because it describes a pretty generalized way of identifying a virus resistant variety. dunno how that would stand up in court. IANAL.
Yes we know. We were talking about whether GM foods are "nondifferent" from non-GM and I said that you can't have it both ways. Either the plants are different and patentable or they are not different and not patentable. Now oneofthem says they are not different "as food." Don't worry IAAL.
On March 16 2016 02:39 IgnE wrote: Seems like something that's fairly debatable to me.
well not really, the information content is fairly irrelevant to how it would be as food.
Ehhh, not really. I mean, for like 99.999% of cases, you're right. But, theoretically you could just use plants merely a production vessel for a non-food specific protein, for whatever reason.
in that case you can point to the protein and say this thing is a material difference in the food. the fda would already be regulating that thing.
the patentability of the tomato doesn't play into it.
the reason why they tend to go for wider scope of the patent is that you may get people who for some reason end up with the plant while skipping the seed. it's kind of an extension of patenting a bacteria for oil cleanup, out of concern that someone could just go take a batch and reproduce them then sell without going through the process or gene patent.
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
On March 16 2016 02:39 IgnE wrote: Seems like something that's fairly debatable to me.
well not really, the information content is fairly irrelevant to how it would be as food.
Ehhh, not really. I mean, for like 99.999% of cases, you're right. But, theoretically you could just use plants merely a production vessel for a non-food specific protein, for whatever reason.
in that case you can point to the protein and say this thing is a material difference in the food. the fda would already be regulating that thing.
the patentability of the tomato doesn't play into it.
the reason why they tend to go for wider scope of the patent is that you may get people who for some reason end up with the plant while skipping the seed. it's kind of an extension of patenting a bacteria for oil cleanup, out of concern that someone could just go take a batch and reproduce them then sell without going through the process or gene patent.
That's one reason they do it that way but it's not the only reason. Sometimes the food is different in taste/smell/appearance/nutritional content.
okay, but they are all good food. just like there's a lot of different 'natural' tomatoes especially at whole foods. GE doesn't systematically produce one trait. i don't really see an argument here in good faith
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
Yes, because Trump is supposed to remember a name he mentioned 15 years ago. I couldn't even recall majority of my elementary school teachers either. Your point?
People have this preconceived opinion of the media and I think that blinds them to some legitimate criticism and media coverage of Trump. The KKK thing may be blown out of proportion. But there are so many Trump quotes that are just self-explanatory. "Back in the old days that person would be taken out on a stretcher. I love the old days". "My critics are gonna have trouble when I'm in office". God help us if Trump is elected.
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
Yes, because Trump is supposed to remember a name he mentioned 15 years ago. I couldn't even recall majority of my elementary school teachers either. Your point?
I am not surprised, to be honest. Not surprised at all.
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
I'll also note, that (i think it was CNN) jumped on Trump on the endorsement like TMZ paparazzi. To him, it was just a random journalist randomly saying " DO YOU DISAVOW DUKE?!?!?!" Trump probably doesn't even know who he was, nor had any reason to believe the journalist.
That being said, I'm glad he didn't disavow Duke right away, because we wouldn't of had this amazing clip.
Trump knew damn well who david duke was and when he said he didn't, that was one of the examples of him flat out lying without blinking an eye. Trump has been involved in politics for a long time, so has David Duke, and they've crossed paths before;
'Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.” In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”'
Now, if you don't care about whether he disavowed him, whether it is because you think it's fair that Trump is just playing the political game and trying to get as many votes as possible regardless of where those votes come from, or because you agree with the KKK, that's one thing. But don't buy into the blatant lie that he had no idea who he was, because he did.
edit: damn, didn't see I was basically beaten to it. ;p
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
I'll also note, that (i think it was CNN) jumped on Trump on the endorsement like TMZ paparazzi. To him, it was just a random journalist randomly saying " DO YOU DISAVOW DUKE?!?!?!" Trump probably doesn't even know who he was, nor had any reason to believe the journalist.
That being said, I'm glad he didn't disavow Duke right away, because we wouldn't of had this amazing clip.
Trump knew damn well who david duke was and when he said he didn't, that was one of the examples of him flat out lying without blinking an eye. Trump has been involved in politics for a long time, so has David Duke, and they've crossed paths before;
'Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.” In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”'
Now, if you don't care about whether he disavowed him, whether it is because you think it's fair that Trump is just playing the political game and trying to get as many votes as possible regardless of where those votes come from, or because you agree with the KKK, that's one thing. But don't buy into the blatant lie that he had no idea who he was, because he did.
edit: damn, didn't see I was basically beaten to it. ;p
Aside from the Duke stuff itself. Him saying he is worried by the 'anger vote' when that is most of his current voters is strangely ironic.
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
Yes, because Trump is supposed to remember a name he mentioned 15 years ago. I couldn't even recall majority of my elementary school teachers either. Your point?
It's not a 'name he mentioned'. It's a significant person whom he has had a very clear opinion on in the past. It's basically like a basketball commentator being asked about Charles Barkley and then going 'I don’t know anything about him, he played basketball'?
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
On March 16 2016 03:08 oneofthem wrote: okay, but they are all good food. just like there's a lot of different 'natural' tomatoes especially at whole foods. GE doesn't systematically produce one trait. i don't really see an argument here in good faith
Yeah this argument is stupid. Food fetishism will never end until capitalism does.
On March 16 2016 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote: the tomato patent is for the entire plant with a very specific characteristic developed in a very specific way, not for tomatoes in general. i'm okay with it from that angle. on the other hand, it does seem like a dumb thing to patent for because it describes a pretty generalized way of identifying a virus resistant variety. dunno how that would stand up in court. IANAL.
People look for genes naturally existing in tomato's, they use GMO to create that tomato where breeding would require a lot and lot of crosses to get a shot of getting the right gene combination.
Then, they patent that specific phenotype. Then, no one can breed the same tomato, GMO or not.
In fact, people breed tomato's that are great. They do not patent them. Then a big multinational comes in and patents their work, because traditional plant breeders/academics are principially against patenting.
And them being patented doesn't mean you can't sell them for profit. It means you can't use them in your own breeding.
It is just stupid and hugely damaging against innovations, as are all patents.
All we need to do is ban all patents and make sure all scientists that now have jobs can get paid to do research. Believe me, scientists aren't in it for the profit. The people that hire and pay them are. You just need to hire and pay the scientists as a public works programme. And do that effectively. Because right now, those scientists that do need to vie for grants often spend half of their time applying for several grants they have a 1% shot to get. Complete waste of time. Even more so as you realize that the criteria do not do anything for giving more money to the best scientists.
And I say this as a biophysist/structural biologist.
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
Nah, its fine. Both of those people had some more hawkish views that I don’t agree with, but beyond that they are fine. They don’t want to take peoples rights away, deport people or force all Muslims to register for a data base. Neither wanted to limit the press’s access or said things like “My critics are going to have a tough time when I am in office.”
Lets be clear, I think Trump wants to take people’s rights away if they criticize him. He wants to limit the press. He has said so several times. This is on top of everything else, including wanting protesters being taken away in a stretcher. No reality distortion field there, its just him talking.
EPT
