US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6451

On December 20 2016 12:09 On_Slaught wrote:
Clearly we are not going to agree on if Trump is playing 7d chess.

At the very least China's response to Trump is a roll of the dice. China is in many ways an equal actor and will have their say before all is said and done.

On December 20 2016 12:18 On_Slaught wrote:
Retard? No. Petty and mediocre? Yes. I believe we have an aggressively mediocre person running the country whose temperament is bound to get him or this country in trouble before things are done.

But I digress, I don't think China is going to be as easy to play as he thinks. For example, if he thinks One China is even a negotiable issue then he is going to be sorely disappointed.

On December 20 2016 12:14 xDaunt wrote:
Anyone who has done any kind of professional negotiation will recognize the simple tactics immediately.

On December 20 2016 12:40 Doodsmack wrote:


Him saying "keep the drone you stole" seems to me more like a statement that doesn't make sense. If doing the unexpected entails saying things that don't really make sense, I'm not sure I buy that this is some sort of smart negotiating tactic.

I guess he could say later on that he didn't make a big deal out of the drone, but he did openly put the One China policy on the table so it's not like he's not stirring the pot.

On December 20 2016 12:30 xDaunt wrote:

Actually, the US has most of the leverage right now. China's economy is teetering, and the Communist Party is struggling to prop up growth, which is almost entirely reliant upon exports . Moreover, China is hemorrhaging foreign currency reserves in an effort to prop up the yuan. The big fear that the US had in dealing with China was China dumping dollars on the market thereby devaluing our currency. However, that's not currently a concern with the dollar being so strong right now despite China's dumping of dollars on the market. If there was ever a moment for the US to reset its relations with China on more favorable grounds, now is it.

On December 20 2016 12:41 xDaunt wrote:

Ignore the drone. He's telling China to go fuck itself. Now does it make more sense?

On December 20 2016 12:45 Doodsmack wrote:


Well I hope that's not the case (and I don't know if it is), because I don't think US-China relations are such that we should be coming in right now and saying fuck you I'm taking everything that I can.

On December 20 2016 13:04 LegalLord wrote:

What do you hope Trump will accomplish with China?

Enthusiasm for cancer immunotherapy is soaring, and so is Arie Belldegrun’s fortune.

Dr. Belldegrun, a physician, co-founded Kite Pharma, a company that could be the first to market next year with a highly anticipated new immunotherapy treatment. But even without a product, Dr. Belldegrun has struck gold.

His stock in Kite is worth about $170 million. Investors have profited along with him, as the company’s share price has soared to about $50 from an initial price of $17 in 2014.

The results reflect widespread excitement over immunotherapy, which harnesses the body’s immune system to attack cancer and has rescued some patients from near-certain death. But they also speak volumes about the value of Kite’s main scientific partner: the United States government.

Kite’s treatment, a form of immunotherapy called CAR-T, was initially developed by a team of researchers at the National Cancer Institute, led by a longtime friend and mentor of Dr. Belldegrun. Now Kite pays several million a year to the government to support continuing research dedicated to the company’s efforts.

The relationship puts American taxpayers squarely in the middle of one of the hottest new drug markets. It also raises a question: Are taxpayers getting a good deal?

Defenders say that the partnership will likely bring a lifesaving treatment to patients, something the government cannot really do by itself, and that that is what matters most.

Critics say that taxpayers will end up paying twice for the same drug — once to support its development and a second time to buy it — while the company reaps the financial benefit.

“If this was not a government-funded cancer treatment — if it was for a new solar technology, for example — it would be scandalous to think that some private investors are reaping massive profits off a taxpayer-funded invention,” said James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, an advocacy group concerned with access to medicines.

The debate goes squarely to one of the nation’s most vexing challenges: rising health care and drug prices. Kite is one of a growing number of drug and biotech companies relying on federal laboratories. Analysts expect the company to charge at least $200,000 for the new treatment, which is intended as a one-time therapy for patients.

While the law allows the government to demand drug-price concessions from its private-sector partners, the government has declined to do so with Kite and generally disdains the practice.

Insisting on lower prices, federal researchers say, would drive away innovative partners that speed the drug-development process and benefit patients. But with the government doing so much pivotal research, others say that the private sector cannot afford to walk away.

“The market is so reliant on the knowledge and know-how that comes out of the government and academic labs,” said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Price curbs, he said, “would not suddenly lead to a total abandonment of this pipeline. It couldn’t possibly.”

Drug makers would be especially unlikely to turn away from immunotherapy, where the promising science has set off a “gold rush mentality,” according to Mark Edwards of Bioscience Advisors, a company which tracks pharmaceutical licensing deals.

The National Institutes of Health, the parent agency of the National Cancer Institute, currently has about 400 cooperative research agreements with companies, and licenses hundreds of patented inventions for private-sector development.

Kite executives and national health officials characterize their partnership as a model arrangement in a system established by Congress three decades ago. The system has given birth to the cancer drug Taxol, the AIDS drug Prezista, two cervical cancer vaccines and a widely used test for H.I.V. infection, among other innovations.

On December 20 2016 16:11 LegalLord wrote:
Anyways, for those that haven't been paying attention, the Obama camp picked Tom Perez, his Secretary of Labor, as his preferred choice for DNC chair and the challenge to Ellison: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-dnc-chair-tom-perez-keith-ellison-20161213-story.html

I'm not really sure what I want out of the DNC but I will say that I am absolutely not fond of what direction the establishment Democrats are taking. It seems they are pushing for a more "the midterms will give us gains against the Trump administration so we should just wait it out" approach rather than one that will yield more to the progressives. If they do, then I'm probably not voting for them next time around.