…I don’t know about the rich people, but our poor people tend to want to stay. There has to be a reason for that, but I couldn’t tell you what it is.

I’ve seen penicillin and insulin mentioned quite a bit in these comments, but these two compounds were relatively low hanging fruits.

Penicillin in particular is an interesting example. While it’s development might have been in public institutions, it was largely the product of obscene defense expenditure. Things wouldn’t have worked out like they did if it didn’t have military applications.

Thats the thing about government research. Governments have narrow interests, and the average voter isn’t equipped to see the bigger picture. They’d prefer tax breaks over research if given an option. They wouldn’t want to pay for the research, but they’d expect the product of that research to be given for free.

I’m pretty sure their purpose is to stall the public until the Republicans can win an election. If a wealthy person just happened to be born in a Democrat state, then that is the ticket they run on. I’d love to find out how many of them have family and friends that are all conservative.

You could fund the facilities, but how many people would be willing to get a doctorate in biological chemistry if the only available jobs were relatively low paying civil servants?

Most of the researchers in the pharmaceutical industry were employed as minimum wage workers during their six years in college. We would have to completely overhaul the incentive structure if we expected colleges to replace the for profit industry.

I have mixed feelings on this. If the entire world had access to free healthcare, chances are research and development would grind to a halt unless they also funded research and development. Taxpayers would need to be willing to pay a company hundreds of millions of dollars if they discovered a useful product.

…it can work in theory, but I’m not sure if it would work in a democracy. The average voter would demand that money be spent on more immediately useful services. If it did work, however, we would save the billions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spend on lawyers and marketing.

…which is strange considering how many people risk their lives trying to get here. If America was as bad as it seems, you’d think there would be more illegal immigration in the opposite direction.

These pictures seem to imply that she was a victim of Epstein. I have my own opinion on this situation, but we should probably hold all of these women to the same standard.

I think most Americans are apathetic about issues that don’t effect our lifestyles. We don’t necessarily like the actions of our country as a whole, but we limit our outrage to the internet and the ballot box.

Honestly, I think voting Republican would be the best course of action to further my preferred Democrat agenda. On the whole, the elections average out to be about 50-50. I don’t understand why, but both parties seem to seek equilibrium.

Maybe the Democrats will be forced to make more popular policy decisions (i.e., universal healthcare) if they start losing by a landslide. Too many major losses would call into question the integrity of a two party system.

I don’t have much faith in the Democrats. I’m reading Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. It’s a great book, and everyone should give it a read. It basically sums up the entire history of America from a Liberal law professor’s point of view.

… regardless. In terms of taxes, Democrats are largely responsible for increasing taxes on the poor and subsidizing the rich. They at the same time give weak concessions to the lower class, but these are flimsy enough to be overturned the minute Republicans are in charge.

He summed it up in one sentence:

In a two-party system, if both parties ignore public opinion, there is no place voters can turn.

This is pretty much the only strategy they have. Although their country is one third as populous as the United States, their defense department has less funding than Arkansa’s public education system. Outrage from the America public is their only defense against US military superiority.

It’s a good strategy. I’d be upset if my tax dollars blew up thousands of civilians making a human chain around a powerplant.

Trump is a brand. His entire business model is putting his face on other people’s products. I don’t know whose calling the shots, but it sure as shit isn’t Trump. He’s a mouth piece succumbing to old age and dementia.

I’m not sure what my argument is exactly; I looked up the definition of civilization because I was bored and was shocked when Trump’s statement made literal sense.

Civilization (noun):The stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced.

The definition Oxford Languages uses is:

“they equated the railroad with progress and civilization”

I hate to say it, but Trump used the correct definition of civilization in regards to his destruction of civilian infrastructure. It doesn’t imply genocide.

I don’t buy this. Controlling firearms and restricting who exactly can join a militia was a common strategy for preventing rebellions at the time the United States was founded.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with giving armies firearms. The people responsible for putting down slave revolts were always armed.

…I’m not sure Europe would be better off if Iran was controlled by Russia, and I’m not sure if an independent Iran is a realistic option. At the end of the day, it seems like Europe needs the oil more than America does.

I sort of agree though. I haven’t heard a compelling argument as to why we are interfering in Europe’s problems. They have the strength of character to take on countries like Iran and Russia.

They have their advantages. They aren’t particularly good at protecting a person since a person that owns or wields a firearm is much, much, much more likely to be stabbed or shot. The other person in the altercation needs to kill or disable them to preserve their own life.

Firearms do, however, make a great store of wealth. If a gun owner ever needs money, they can easily make a profit…especially on the black market. This is arguably one of the most important benefits from the perspective of gun owners. The value of a gun increases with inflation.

It would honestly depend on the melting point of the tar and what it’s mixed with. I guess they could just heat pure wood tar, but they had the technical know how to mix it with volatile plant oils to make it more liquid.

The goal is to humiliate a person; running around like a chicken is more humiliating than being a dead chicken. Since they wanted a show, they would have went out of their way to make it less deadly.

…the argument your making about the 2nd amendment is why it’s now obsolete. When America was founded, firearms could actually be used to overthrow a corrupt government. They had practical utility. At this point, however, half the population armed with assault rifles wouldn’t make a difference. A combination of the government’s mass surveillance and superior firepower would put down the rebellion before it got off the ground

I’m of the opinion that the constitution should adjust to changing times. 18th century laws aren’t geared to solve 21st century issues.

10/10. I’d smash.