Yeah, you got a lot of different subjects to change positions on too gain more power
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, you got a lot of different subjects to change positions on too gain more power
Don't forget calling someone a racist, homophope, islamaphobe, sexist, misogynist, etc
How is that a question at all? Plagiarism is theft of somebody's work. It's never ok in any form whatsoever, politics included. Plagiarism is simply not acceptable. Didn't you learn this in school?
I was told that I shouldn't find it acceptable, but I consider learning something else entirely.
I generally find plagiarism fine in most circumstances. If one politician wants to be associated to the same themes as another, what is the problem? If there is a particular flow of thought that is appealing, why would you want to use a more awkward phrasing simply because it is original?
Plagiarism in school is an issue because it prevents educational institutions from easily evaluating a large number of students quickly. I don't see a parallel issue here.
Would also like to tag on that plagiarism in the economy is also not ok because you are stealing profits from someone who put in the work to make an original creation.
You can't steal profits. You can steal money.
Have you ever taken a economics course? You're literally arguing against the free market.
Sure. Go ahead. The world already acknowledges the re-usage of ideas an phrases, indeed entire works. It's called citing. The tragedy is that all she needed to say was "As Michelle Obama said..... blabla" and it would have actually won her unexpected brownie points and would have saved her husband's campaign and and the RNC from this hilarious fatality.
The Republicans never mention solutions/plans to help economic recovery/poverty/income inequality and are against social rights for Women and Minorities is more what I mean but steer your response back to JUST Hillary Clinton when I was comparing the 2 parties, not Hillary to Trump and it's very clear that both have different agenda and policies that are actually quite different and it's scary how some people here think the parties are similar because they are more polarized then EVER before.
I'm sorry but what? you sir are they one who clearly has never taken an economics course. Intellectual property is a backbone of modern capitalism. And it was considered so important that it was written straight into the US constitution:
"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power
...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Lavos
Banned deucer.
lol
copyright ONLY protects corporations, bud. the consumer will always lose out when government gives protections against competition. that's what a copyright is - a decision by government to grant protections to the creator of a good or service, to be able to monopolize that good or service for a given time. key word "monopolize". meaning no one else gets to compete, meaning the price of that exclusive good or service is however high the sole manufacturer wants to set it.
the reason some shit in china is so incredibly cheap is because there's a constant competition among companies to see who can produce it the cheapest, since china's copyright law is nearly nonexistent. meanwhile going to Disneyland in the US still costs a fucking fortune.
also modern capitalism =/= the free market, please never make that comparison again
copyright ONLY protects corporations, bud. the consumer will always lose out when government gives protections against competition. that's what a copyright is - a decision by government to grant protections to the creator of a good or service, to be able to monopolize that good or service for a given time. key word "monopolize". meaning no one else gets to compete, meaning the price of that exclusive good or service is however high the sole manufacturer wants to set it.
the reason some shit in china is so incredibly cheap is because there's a constant competition among companies to see who can produce it the cheapest, since china's copyright law is nearly nonexistent. meanwhile going to Disneyland in the US still costs a fucking fortune.
also modern capitalism =/= the free market, please never make that comparison again
Not convinced. The statement in the constitution implies copyright has the purpose of promoting innovation and educational research. There is no implication that copyright benefits the free market.
I do agree with copyright for some purposes, such as those laid out in the constitution. But I do not see an issue with plagiarism of speeches, nor do I see 'theft of profits' as a reason to dislike plagiarism.
Copyright is the backbone of modern capitalism for certain, and is the reason why we are seeing millions of people tire of "Capitalism" entirely. Copyright is the reason pharmaceutical companies can increase drug costs 1000% overnight. It's the reason billion dollar lawsuits between software companies is the norm. It's the reason Monsanto can run small farmers out of business. I am talking about the free market, not modern capitalism.
I do agree with copyright for some purposes, such as those laid out in the constitution. But I do not see an issue with plagiarism of speeches, nor do I see 'theft of profits' as a reason to dislike plagiarism.
Copyright is the backbone of modern capitalism for certain, and is the reason why we are seeing millions of people tire of "Capitalism" entirely. Copyright is the reason pharmaceutical companies can increase drug costs 1000% overnight. It's the reason billion dollar lawsuits between software companies is the norm. It's the reason Monsanto can run small farmers out of business. I am talking about the free market, not modern capitalism.
Last edited:
I didn't say copyrights were a literally free market. Obviously they are not. But there's a serious catch 22 when it comes to economics. I'm saying that copyrights are fundamental and essential to actual reality capitalism. Have fun in your backwater world where literally anyone can make money on literally any one else's work. That was the history of capitalism before copyrights. I'm not making this up. Take a history class. Take an economics class. I don't care which. Either would do. Copyright has been necessary since the printing press was invented. As soon as it was easy to copy others work and make money off of it, people were doing it, and it needed to be stopped.
The notion that a free market can even exist without some forms of government regulation is nonsense. If you are talking about the free market, not modern capitalism, you are talking about a fairyland. Without government regulation, there's barter, but nothing more. Free market capitalism only actually works when it is backed up by the rule of law. That includes copyrights. There are certainly many enormous issues with our copyright and patent law, such as what is copyrightable and how long certain patents last, etc. I'd be happy to talk about them separately.
But the consumer does not lose out due to copyright law. They do pay higher prices for products and services, for sure. That's what a monopoly does. But without copyrights, innovators would have far less incentive (if not zero incentive...) to innovate, period. Many of the products and services just wouldn't exist. Have fun without your diabetes drugs and blockbuster movies.
The notion that a free market can even exist without some forms of government regulation is nonsense. If you are talking about the free market, not modern capitalism, you are talking about a fairyland. Without government regulation, there's barter, but nothing more. Free market capitalism only actually works when it is backed up by the rule of law. That includes copyrights. There are certainly many enormous issues with our copyright and patent law, such as what is copyrightable and how long certain patents last, etc. I'd be happy to talk about them separately.
But the consumer does not lose out due to copyright law. They do pay higher prices for products and services, for sure. That's what a monopoly does. But without copyrights, innovators would have far less incentive (if not zero incentive...) to innovate, period. Many of the products and services just wouldn't exist. Have fun without your diabetes drugs and blockbuster movies.
Republicans put forth plans all the time, they are carefully scrutinized too since the only democrat plan is to just have the government do it while claiming the Republicans are against everything. Fail to see how moving towards a more free market solution is preventing economic recovery, could literally go into pages about things the democrats do that only increase poverty, income inequality is a joke of an issue, against rights for women=they don't support killing unborn babies, and against minorities because they use statistics to deal with problems instead of listening to how people feel. I could have gone on with quoting Elizabeth Warren and how she is 1/64th native american and used that "fact" to teach a single class at harvard for an insane amount of money. Or I could put up my favorite about the housing crash but it seems that when I put too much evidence that destroys democrats then my post gets ignored (still can't find a Hillary supporter to defend all of the scandals she has been in). It is a little telling too that throughout the entire campaign the Republican party fought Trump tooth and nail, with many still doing it now, while the democrats already had Clinton as their nominee and did everything they could to get her that nominee. Then once she was the nominee they forced Bernie Sanders to sell out, while the Republicans just told their candidates to do what you got to do to win in your home state aka if you live in a trump supporters state suck it up and if you live in an actual conservative state you don't have to endorse him. Kind of says a lot about which party has any principles
The hypocrisy here is hilarious
So the middle class shrinking and the 1% gaining more and more of the total wealth isn't concerning at all? Abortion has been upheld by the supreme court and fighting over it is stupid since it was upheld as legal in the 1980's and yet we're still fighting over it. Pathetic.
When I talk about minority stuff I mean more issues like tackling problems in these communties, trying to deal with the issues that THEY have that are unique to them, and maybe acknowledging that gay rights are a thing instead of trying to prevent us from adopting kids because they won't grow up to be the same under a same sex household (this is really in the Republican platform adopted at the convention btw).
oh and pssst, supply side economics don't work (look at how many economic problems and debt increases are caused by REPUBLICANS over Democrats despite them "being better at handling the economy")
The Supreme Court is going to continue upholding abortion because it usually follows the precedents that the court itself has set. It is not going to suddenly rule against abortion unless there is distinct, legitimate scientific evidence used to support somebody in a case (usually, the science in individual cases is cherry picked). Also, during 1973, we did not possess anywhere near the amount of scientific information regarding pregnancy than we do now. The big problem is, again, people usually cherry pick whatever information they find convenient to use for political motivations rather than read the science and see what it actually has to say about the pregnancy process.
Debt increases and economic problems cannot be tied to Republican presidents alone - Obama DID noticeably increase our debt with both the Stimulus and the ACA, and the most expensive things on the US budget, the military, Medicare, and Medicaid, are going to continue to rise in costs. Most of the US debt does have cause from Bush tax cats and the recession, but you really cannot just tie the debt to one political party because both parties are responsible for the debt problems.
Last edited:
One person gets $25,000 a year and another gets $50,000 a year. They both double their salaries the next year. According to income inequality that is bad. Sorry to burst you're bubble, but you don't get to decide how much money anyone else makes.
Yeah Ruth Bader Ginsburg is totally impartial to all her decisions. But no, lets have 9 unelected judges decide our rules on whether we are allowed to murder unborn children. Pathetic.
Minority problems are a result of a rise of single mothers, lack of police, and gang violence with politicians(democrats) pushing for no reforms to keep their office. I believe Obama put it best when he said, "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work. It's about forging consensus and fighting cynicism and finding the will to make change." Let me translate that into a language you can understand, finding an answer to the problem isn't what being a leader is about, it is about expressing you're feelings.
Gay marriage and adoption should be up to state and adoption agencies and not to the federal government. But I do find the gay community pretty funny in its hilariously misguided and stupid political stances.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/de...ot_2016-06-27_at_3.36.18_pm.jpg?itok=JRI0KoWJ
Apparently that is the response to a registered democrat converted Muslim terrorist shooting them up. Blame the Republicans. I think Texas Cloverleaf put his statement in the wrong spot. His response would actually go well right here after the gay marriage spot right here.
Also you might want to check out the Laffer curve before you state such obvious bullshit about economics.
Also might want to look at this
http://www.parenting.com/gallery/best-cities-worst-economy-least-affordable-families?page=9
Funny, a common theme about these terrible economic cities is their democrat influence. And the list doesn't include, Chicago, Baltimore and other terrible cities run by democrats.
And I will add another thing you don't in that fascinating post you called an argument, facts
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...st-u-s-states-really-republican/#74e81244ddde
And another fun list for you. List of poorest cities in the United States and the last time they had a republican mayor
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.
Lavos
Banned deucer.
one more year until I have a degree in both, thanks for the suggestion
yeah that's the neoliberal argument, it also gets dismantled when you rid yourself of the notion that corporations somehow control what the consumer base demands. consumers dictate production. corporations react to the demands of the consumer and produce accordingly, or they go out of business. innovation is tricky to track from a statistical standpoint but logic would seem to demonstrate tat if there's something consumers want which no corporation can provide, that's when you see the most innovation, in order to be the first to capture a market ($$$)
I wouldn't want to live in a world completely devoid of any copyright laws, but I will contend that the copyright laws in western liberal democracies are far too generous towards innovators, this dates back to queen anne's copyright act of 1709 and has barely changed in over 3 centuries. everything moves faster in the modern world, copyright expirations should be no exception.
the reason life-saving medicine costs 1000 times what it takes to produce is because the first corporation to "innovate" such a drug can place copyright for 28 years and the only way other corporations can manufacture the same drug in that timespan is to buyout the right to produce for absolutely outrageous fees, often in the BILLIONS.
so in the end we agree on most points but I think if we had an in-depth discussion we'd disagree on the extent to which copyright should apply
manodelrey you gotta be kidding me with the mayor example. republicans win rural and democrats win urban, that's how it's always been. and it's because republicans subsidize the fuck out of farmers and prop up small businesses whereas democrats promote welfare programs and are generally a lot less racist. completely backwards reasoning right there. please stop, your posts read like fox news pundits
minor nitpick but i think it's only been that way since the 60's. before that the dems were a pretty sectarian white supremacist party and the republicans had their strongholds in the cities. i guess the constant is that the GOP has always been a pro-business party, and the realignment of the two parties has mostly had to do with the realignment of business interests
is because this is not factual. Maybe the literal price of a pill at mass production vs the literal sale price of the pill. But not remotely once you factor in R&D. Don't spout nonsense.
Anyway, I do agree most copyrights should probably be shorter. But your overall argument seemed to be that the whole idea of copyright is bad, and that's just an insane position.
Also this isn't directly political either but I can't stop laughing.
Lavos
Banned deucer.
yeah by "forever" I meant "since Nixon" because that's the last time political demographics shifted significantly, obviously the dems were a tad more racist in reconstruction times
I'm referring to the cost of production vs the sale price. you should know not to add static costs to the equation. however many millions of dollars I spend in the lab paying scientists to make my miracle pill has ZERO impact on how I choose to price said pill once it's on the market. the only thing it affects are my profit margins. and since my scientists don't have to keep inventing the same drug over and over, R&D costs disappear and profits quickly fill them in.
so, uh...don't spout nonsense? seriously just think about how much R&D costs a giant fucking pharma corporation like Pfizer in terms of percentages. you think that's a significant amount of money when they're pulling $5 billion every year?
- Status