Support NeoGAF

[Moneal]

lol do they really do that hahaha

yes they actually do that.

 

[MMaRsu]

That sounds pretty ridiculous unless they are egyptians themselves. Then again, there were many ethnicities in and around that area back then. What ethnicity are they if I may ask?

 

[Moneal]

That sounds pretty ridiculous unless they are egyptians themselves. Then again, there were many ethnicities in and around that area back then. What ethnicity are they if I may ask?

African American.

 

[JCK75]

Fear drives votes, I recall hearing a lot of people on the right say the same things about Obama..
The level an animosity we have for each other over policy opinions is something I find frightening personally.

 

[haimon]

Trump is a terrible president and is doing horrible things.
I have no doubts he would love to have even more power than he already has and am happy the courts are not letting him pull all the idiotic ideas he has.

 

[MMaRsu]

African American.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

 

[llien]

I have no doubts Trump would like to, let's put it mildly, stay for 4 terms.
I also have no doubts that it's not a real threat.

 

[TheShadowLord]

I have no doubts Trump would like to, let's put it mildly, stay for 4 terms.
I also have no doubts that it's not a real threat.

Yeah, who wouldn't? =p

 

[Fox Mulder]

It's fucking dumb, but you hear this about every president now.

some people said the same about Obama and some people said the same about Bush and Cheney before that. It's just divided political bullshit that some on every side do to feel like they're rallying troops.

 

[Ke0]

This thread took a weird turn

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

OP this is not pol friend.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

You’re minimizing what IP protection does to encourage consumer confidence.
IP protection isn’t just about protecting the businesses. It’s what ensures that when you go buy a Ford that you are actually buying a Ford and not a “Chevy Mustang” or a “Ford Camaro” or some other knock off. It’s literally that thing the ensures that don’t have a Sony “Switch” or a Mitsubishi Playstation 4. It’s about consumer confidence. Do you have any idea how much of an economic collapse the US would experience??? Just think about going to the movies to see a new Disney film and there’s too movies showing Disney’s Frozen about and Ice Queen and Gisneys Frozen about an Ice Queen. Or Harvels Avengers Infinite War.

It’s not just about the companies is about consumer confidence. I’d be far less likely to purchase a new game console if their was a chance that the thing I was spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on was a knock off.

Our economy is consumer driven which means its dependent on consumer confidence and our ability to spend money on luxuries without thinking too much about it. If you want to destroy the foundation of nations economy by eroding consumer confidence you would tank GDP almost overnight.

This isn’t even about Trump it’s just a bad idea, IP and tariffs are two different issues and not even comparable for what their intention is and what they do.

How is it about consumer confidence? People routinely buy knockoff products to pay dramatically lower prices.

They're not being defrauded and they're making a conscious decision to save a lot of money. How is the consumer harmed or whoever is making the copy harmed?

If you believe what you're saying, then why hasn't China's economy collapsed? Is consumer confidence at an all-time low?

As I said, some of the critical pieces of a market system are things like prices and competition. IP protection distorts those things by creating monopolies and dramatically marking up prices without evidence of a payoff that makes it worthwhile. And you're right IP and tariffs aren't comparable because the former is more destructive.

And it has a lot to do with Pres. Trump. He wants to protect the forgotten men and women in the US at a trivial cost. His critics prefer to protect multinationals and Hollywood at a high cost. They want big government for them, but not for you.

 

[rokkerkory]

Dictators dont lie as much as Trump so nope.

 

[TheMikado]

How is it about consumer confidence? People routinely buy knockoff products to pay dramatically lower prices.

They're not being defrauded and they're making a conscious decision to save a lot of money. How is the consumer harmed or whoever is making the copy harmed?

If you believe what you're saying, then why hasn't China's economy collapsed? Is consumer confidence at an all-time low?

As I said, some of the critical pieces of a market system are things like prices and competition. IP protection distorts those things by creating monopolies and dramatically marking up prices without evidence of a payoff that makes it worthwhile. And you're right IP and tariffs aren't comparable because the former is more destructive.

And it has a lot to do with Pres. Trump. He wants to protect the forgotten men and women in the US at a trivial cost. His critics prefer to protect multinationals and Hollywood at a high cost. They want big government for them, but not for you.

I'll just let the US government tell you how important it is:

https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/protect-intellectual-property
The United States is “the innovation center of the world,” according to Francis Gurry, Director-General of the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization. This is thanks in large part to a rigorous system of intellectual property (“IP”) laws, grounded in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.

IP provides the incentives for the world’s most innovative minds to develop cures for deadly diseases, productivity-enhancing software, safe and plentiful food supplies, and clean energy technologies; enhances our cultural life through the encouragement of creative works, such as books, movies, music, and art; and, promotes brand accountability to safeguard an informed consumer from dangerous fakes and pirated products.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, IP-intensive companies account for more than $6 trillion of U.S. GDP, drive 52% of U.S. exports and support 45 million American jobs. American IP laws are the strongest in the world according to theU.S. Chamber of Commerce International IP Index.


https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/intellectual-property-has-huge-impact-society

Strike up a conversation about intellectual property (IP) at a party and you’ll likely find yourself standing alone. Though it may seem like an abstract concept to some, IP plays an essential role in our culture and economy by driving innovation, protecting consumers, and supporting everything from music, cinema, and sports to health, tech, trade, and more. In other words, anyone who’s interested in the hottest new smartphone, the latest blockbuster film, the most promising new drug therapy, the safest toys for their children, or the next major U.S. trade agreement is interested in IP—whether or not they know it.

IP is critical to public safety and consumer confidence. Strong IP protections and enforcement are important to preventing dangerous products—such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals or toys—from getting into consumers’ hands. Trademarks give customers confidence that they are buying genuine, high-quality products from brands they trust.

IP has an enormous effect on our economy. America’s IP is worth $5 trillion. IP-intensive industries account for 38% of total U.S. GDP, support 40 million American jobs, and drive 60% of U.S. exports.

 

[BANGS]

I'll just let the US government tell you how important it is:

https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/protect-intellectual-property
The United States is “the innovation center of the world,” according to Francis Gurry, Director-General of the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization. This is thanks in large part to a rigorous system of intellectual property (“IP”) laws, grounded in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.

IP provides the incentives for the world’s most innovative minds to develop cures for deadly diseases, productivity-enhancing software, safe and plentiful food supplies, and clean energy technologies; enhances our cultural life through the encouragement of creative works, such as books, movies, music, and art; and, promotes brand accountability to safeguard an informed consumer from dangerous fakes and pirated products.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, IP-intensive companies account for more than $6 trillion of U.S. GDP, drive 52% of U.S. exports and support 45 million American jobs. American IP laws are the strongest in the world according to theU.S. Chamber of Commerce International IP Index.


https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/intellectual-property-has-huge-impact-society

Strike up a conversation about intellectual property (IP) at a party and you’ll likely find yourself standing alone. Though it may seem like an abstract concept to some, IP plays an essential role in our culture and economy by driving innovation, protecting consumers, and supporting everything from music, cinema, and sports to health, tech, trade, and more. In other words, anyone who’s interested in the hottest new smartphone, the latest blockbuster film, the most promising new drug therapy, the safest toys for their children, or the next major U.S. trade agreement is interested in IP—whether or not they know it.

IP is critical to public safety and consumer confidence. Strong IP protections and enforcement are important to preventing dangerous products—such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals or toys—from getting into consumers’ hands. Trademarks give customers confidence that they are buying genuine, high-quality products from brands they trust.

IP has an enormous effect on our economy. America’s IP is worth $5 trillion. IP-intensive industries account for 38% of total U.S. GDP, support 40 million American jobs, and drive 60% of U.S. exports.

While I believe that IP protections can and often do cross the line into becoming detrimental, the ends justify the means. We wouldn't have these products at all if someone didn't think they could become rich by putting the effort into inventing it...

 

[TheMikado]

While I believe that IP protections can and often do cross the line into becoming detrimental, the ends justify the means. We wouldn't have these products at all if someone didn't think they could become rich by putting the effort into inventing it...

I don't want to go super off topic, but IP protection is fundamental to any civilization where they have developed beyond agriculture being the predominant occupation.
Its something that has existed since antiquity even with artists and writers signing their paintings to denote authenticity.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/

1. History of Intellectual Property
One of the first known references to intellectual property protection dates from 500 B.C.E., when chefs in the Greek colony of Sybaris were granted year-long monopolies for creating particular culinary delights. There are at least three other notable references to intellectual property in ancient times—these cases are cited in Bruce Bugbee's formidable work The Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law (Bugbee 1967). In the first case, Vitruvius (257–180 B.C.E.) is said to have revealed intellectual property theft during a literary contest in Alexandria. While serving as judge in the contest, Vitruvius exposed the false poets who were then tried, convicted, and disgraced for stealing the words and phrases of others.

The second and third cases also come from Roman times (first century C.E.). Although there is no known Roman law protecting intellectual property, Roman jurists did discuss the different ownership interests associated with an intellectual work and how the work was codified—e.g., the ownership of a painting and the ownership of a table upon which the painting appears. There is also reference to literary piracy by the Roman epigrammatist Martial. In this case, Fidentinus is caught reciting the works of Martial without citing the source.

These examples are generally thought to be atypical; as far as we know, there were no institutions or conventions of intellectual property protection in Ancient Greece or Rome. From Roman times to the birth of the Florentine Republic, however, there were many franchises, privileges, and royal favors granted surrounding the rights to intellectual works. Bugbee distinguishes between franchises or royal favors and systems of intellectual property in the following way: franchises and royal favors restrict access to intellectual works already in the public domain, thus these decrees take something from the people. An inventor, on the other hand, deprives the public of nothing that existed prior to the act of invention (Bugbee 1967). One of the first statutes that protected authors' rights was issued by the Republic of Florence on June 19, 1421, to Filippo Brunelleschi, a famous architect. This statute not only recognized the rights of authors and inventors to the products of their intellectual efforts; it built in an incentive mechanism that became a prominent feature of Anglo-American intellectual property protection. For several reasons, including Guild influence, the Florentine patent statute of 1421 issued only the single patent to Brunelleschi. The basis of the first lasting patent institution of intellectual property protection is found in a 1474 statute of the Venetian Republic. This statute appeared 150 years before England's Statute of Monopolies; moreover, the system was sophisticated. The rights of inventors were recognized, an incentive mechanism was included, compensation for infringement was established, and a term limit on inventors' rights was imposed.

American institutions of intellectual property protection are based on the English system that began with the Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the Statute of Anne (1710). The Statute of Monopolies granted fourteen-year monopolies to authors and inventors and ended the practice of granting rights to “non-original/new” ideas or works already in the public domain. In contrast to patent institutions in Europe, literary works remained largely unprotected until the arrival of Gutenberg's printing press in the fifteenth century. Even then there were few true copyrights granted—most were grants, privileges, and monopolies.

The Statute of Anne (1710) is considered by scholars to be the first statute of modern copyright. The statute begins:

“Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have lately frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing books without the consent of the authors and proprietors … to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write use books, be it enacted …” (Great Britain, Statute of Anne, 1710)​

The law gave protection to the author by granting fourteen-year copyrights, with a fourteen-year renewal possible if the author was still alive.

In the landmark English case Miller v. Taylor (1769), the inherent rights of authors to control what they produce, independent of statute or law, was affirmed. While this case was later overruled inDonaldson v. Becket (1774), the practice of recognizing the rights of authors had begun. Other European countries, including Belgium, Holland, Italy, and Switzerland, followed the example set by England (Bugbee, 1967). Various more recent international treaties like the Berne Convention treaty and the TRIPS agreement have expanded the geographic scope of intellectual property protection to include most of the globe (Moore 2001).

 

[pramod]

The American left is going off the rails. It's simply embarrassing. The biggest crybabies in the history of politics. They lose one election and act like it's the end of the world. Even though I agree with some leftist policies I would never want to self-identify as a "progressives" or Democrat because I want nothing to do with these people.

Ok so Trump is horrible yada yada, but you know what, he won't be there forever, and even though I'm not a rich person or work for Russia, I think I will survive his presidency. If I can, you can too!

 

[Grinchy]

The American left is going off the rails. It's simply embarrassing. The biggest crybabies in the history of politics. They lose one election and act like it's the end of the world. Even though I agree with some leftist policies I would never want to self-identify as a "progressives" or Democrat because I want nothing to do with these people.

Ok so Trump is horrible yada yada, but you know what, he won't be there forever, and even though I'm not a rich person or work for Russia, I think I will survive his presidency. If I can, you can too!

I would love to see videos of republicans crying hysterically on election night when a democrat won. I can't imagine it exists. The insane hyperbole about the last election was as frustrating as it was hilarious.

 

[FGT Smasher]

It’s just embarrassing, some twats even say their lives are in danger because of Trump.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

when trump was first elected i was so bummed but to be honest i kind of turned around on him. i dont think hes a good guy or anything but ive come to appreciate him for the shit he says. i think hes hilarious. but when it comes down to it really his success is our success too

 

[i_am_ben]

It’s just embarrassing, some twats even say their lives are in danger because of Trump.

It's relatively easy to make that argument given Republicans have tried to (sometimes successfully) destroy Obamacare.

Not that Obamacare is amazing, but it certainly has expanded health coverage and saved lives.

 

[Grinchy]

when trump was first elected i was so bummed but to be honest i kind of turned around on him. i dont think hes a good guy or anything but ive come to appreciate him for the shit he says. i think hes hilarious. but when it comes down to it really his success is our success too

Yeah, I certainly couldn't bring myself to vote for him or Hillary as I didn't really want either of them being our president. I wasn't necessarily bummed or glad that he won, but like every president before him, I knew that the person in office wasn't going to dramatically change anyone's lives. I'm glad some good is coming out of it and it has produced some hilarious hysteria on top of hilarious moments from Trump himself. It's a pretty great America so far.

 

[i_am_ben]

Yeah, I certainly couldn't bring myself to vote for him or Hillary as I didn't really want either of them being our president. I wasn't necessarily bummed or glad that he won, but like every president before him, I knew that the person in office wasn't going to dramatically change anyone's lives. I'm glad some good is coming out of it and it has produced some hilarious hysteria on top of hilarious moments from Trump himself. It's a pretty great America so far.

What is your logic for this?

 

[TheMikado]

I would love to see videos of republicans crying hysterically on election night when a democrat won. I can't imagine it exists. The insane hyperbole about the last election was as frustrating as it was hilarious.

Umm there’s videos of it all over YouTube.
Being a republican doesn’t magically make you immune to the partisan bullshit and the idea that members of one party don’t behave like the other party is why we’re in this mess to begin with.

 

[Grinchy]

Umm there’s videos of it all over YouTube.
Being a republican doesn’t magically make you immune to the partisan bullshit and the idea that members of one party don’t behave like the other party is why we’re in this mess to begin with.

Pretty good, but not great. Video of hysterical crying would have been more funny than still images. The idea that these people were as hyperbolic as the ones from the Trump election isn't really shown here.

 

[TheMikado]

Pretty good, but not great. Video of hysterical crying would have been more funny than still images. The idea that these people were as hyperbolic as the ones from the Trump election isn't really shown here.

I wasn’t aware it was a contest.

However as is often the case with hyper partisanship the goalposts shift from
“This doesn’t exist from my side” or
“My side doesn’t do this”
To
“Well if we do do it, it’s not as bad as the other side...”

This of course ignoring that it maybe shouldnt be happened at all on either side.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

I'll just let the US government tell you how important it is:

https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/protect-intellectual-property
The United States is “the innovation center of the world,” according to Francis Gurry, Director-General of the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization. This is thanks in large part to a rigorous system of intellectual property (“IP”) laws, grounded in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.

IP provides the incentives for the world’s most innovative minds to develop cures for deadly diseases, productivity-enhancing software, safe and plentiful food supplies, and clean energy technologies; enhances our cultural life through the encouragement of creative works, such as books, movies, music, and art; and, promotes brand accountability to safeguard an informed consumer from dangerous fakes and pirated products.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, IP-intensive companies account for more than $6 trillion of U.S. GDP, drive 52% of U.S. exports and support 45 million American jobs. American IP laws are the strongest in the world according to theU.S. Chamber of Commerce International IP Index.


https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/intellectual-property-has-huge-impact-society

Strike up a conversation about intellectual property (IP) at a party and you’ll likely find yourself standing alone. Though it may seem like an abstract concept to some, IP plays an essential role in our culture and economy by driving innovation, protecting consumers, and supporting everything from music, cinema, and sports to health, tech, trade, and more. In other words, anyone who’s interested in the hottest new smartphone, the latest blockbuster film, the most promising new drug therapy, the safest toys for their children, or the next major U.S. trade agreement is interested in IP—whether or not they know it.

IP is critical to public safety and consumer confidence. Strong IP protections and enforcement are important to preventing dangerous products—such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals or toys—from getting into consumers’ hands. Trademarks give customers confidence that they are buying genuine, high-quality products from brands they trust.

IP has an enormous effect on our economy. America’s IP is worth $5 trillion. IP-intensive industries account for 38% of total U.S. GDP, support 40 million American jobs, and drive 60% of U.S. exports.

You're simply wrong.

Early advocates of monopoly as a catalyst for innovation, most notably Schumpeter, argued that the distortion arising from a temporary monopoly would disappear once the forces of competition could come into play—or at least that these static distortions were more than compensated for by the benefits of increased innovation.

Competition for the market, understood as better, less expensive and more products, replaces competition in the market, understood as competition between firms. He also argued that as a result, monopolies would only be temporary. Schumpeter never proved these arguments, and later research questioned all of the underlying assumptions and conclusions in his analysis. Thus, for example, Stiglitz (1988), Dasgupta and Stiglitz (1988) and Fudenberg et al (1983) argued that granting monopolies not only provided weak incentives to innovate, and Dasgupta and Stiglitz (1980b) showed that a monopolist could and would entrench its dominant position.

http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/baker-jayadev-stiglitz-innovation-ip-development-2017-07.pdf

The theory of patent law is based on the idea that a lone genius can solve problems that stump the experts, and that the lone genius will do so only if properly incented. We deny patents on inventions that are "obvious" to ordinarily innovative scientists in the field. Our goal is to encourage extraordinary inventions – those that we wouldn’t expect to get without the incentive of a patent.

The canonical story of the lone genius inventor is largely a myth. Edison didn’t invent the light bulb; he found a bamboo fiber that worked better as a filament in the light bulb developed by Sawyer and Man, who in turn built on lighting work done by others. Bell filed for his telephone patent on the very same day as an independent inventor, Elisha Gray; the case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which filled an entire volume of U.S. Reports resolving the question of whether Bell could have a patent despite the fact that he hadn’t actually gotten the invention to work at the time he filed. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly at Kitty Hawk, but their plane didn’t work very well, and was quickly surpassed by aircraft built by Glenn Curtis and others – planes that the Wrights delayed by over a decade with patent lawsuits.

The point can be made more general: surveys of hundreds of significant new technologies show that almost all of them are invented simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by two or more teams working independently of each other. Invention appears in significant part to be a social, not an individual, phenomenon. Inventors build on the work of those who came before, and new ideas are often "in the air," or result from changes in market demand or the availability of new or cheaper starting materials. And in the few circumstances where that is not true – where inventions truly are "singletons" – it is often because of an accident or error in the experiment rather than a conscious effort to invent.

The result is a real problem for classic theories of patent law. If we are supposed to be encouraging only inventions that others in the field couldn’t have made, we should be paying a lot more attention than we currently do to simultaneous invention. We should issuing very few patents – surely not the 200,000 per year we do today. And we should be denying patents on the vast majority of the most important inventions, since most seem to involve near-simultaneous invention. Put simply, our dominant theory of patent law doesn’t seem to explain the way we actually implement that law.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610

With respect to the links you posted, you're conflating industry/company value with a government intervention in a market system. Intellectual property is not worth 38% of US GDP. Government granted monopolies don't support 45 million jobs. Intellectual property is a trade barrier....how would it drives 60% of exports?

Keep in mind a trade barrier is protectionism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

IP protection is one of the most costly forms of protectionism that can be used because of the deadweight loss, enforcement costs, transaction costs, litigation costs, etc.

And I'm confused why you're such a staunch supporter because it's a rent-seeking scheme. No money is making it's way to your bank account. No food is being put on your table. Disney or Joe blow reaping the benefits of a rigged system doesn't help you or your family.

It's often thought that the technology sector is the least regulated and therefore has been the most productive during the past couple of decades. Famously, Bill Gates had no interest in politics. "In the beginning, Microsoft tried to ignore the powerful political forces arrayed against it, hunkering down in Redmond, Washington, to focus on its core businesses," William F. Shugart wrote in the Freeman. Of course, the Department of Justice snapped Mr. Gates to attention.

And while Mark Zuckerberg says he doesn't like to vote, since hiring Sheryl Sandberg, who served in the Clinton administration, Facebook's DC presence has increased, and President Obama himself stopped by the FB office.

The news of AOL's patent sale to Microsoft reminds us that there is plenty of government force channeling money toward the coffers of the big tech companies. It's not all warm and fuzzy corporate slogans, cool workplaces, and upscale company cafeterias in Silicon Valley.

Battalions of intellectual-property (IP) lawyers keep constant watch over the government-erected barriers and monopoly privileges that lock up ideas and create corporate value out of thin air.

https://mises.org/library/innovation-rent-seeking

When Patents Attack

Update, July 26: This story from Planet Money's Alex Blumberg and NPR's Laura Sydell aired this weekend on This American Life. (Check out TAL's "Ways to Listen" page to find how you can hear the story.) A shorter version of the piece is also airing today on All Things Considered. Here's the story.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

Pres. Trump is trying to protect the forgotten men and women of his country. Elites are trying to enrich themselves through the law.

 

[manfestival]

My problem is that the media is so crazy obsessed about trump that it has made me numb to any headline regarding him. He could literally be accused and I wont care at this point because I am fed up of hearing about him

 

[TheMikado]

You're simply wrong.



http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/baker-jayadev-stiglitz-innovation-ip-development-2017-07.pdf



https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610

With respect to the links you posted, you're conflating industry/company value with a government intervention in a market system. Intellectual property is not worth 38% of US GDP. Government granted monopolies don't support 45 million jobs. Intellectual property is a trade barrier....how would it drives 60% of exports?

Keep in mind a trade barrier is protectionism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

IP protection is one of the most costly forms of protectionism that can be used because of the deadweight loss, enforcement costs, transaction costs, litigation costs, etc.

And I'm confused why you're such a staunch supporter because it's a rent-seeking scheme. No money is making it's way to your bank account. No food is being put on your table. Disney or Joe blow reaping the benefits of a rigged system doesn't help you or your family.

https://mises.org/library/innovation-rent-seeking

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

Pres. Trump is trying to protect the forgotten men and women of his country. Elites are trying to enrich themselves through the law.

Your arguments are entirely hinging on monopolies begin bad, something I agree on and didn't argue with.
And that everything technology is simultaneously replicated elsewhere by an independent team which is pseudoscience and unsubstantiated.

Our current system allows IP protections while breaking up monopolies. That's the specific design from hundreds of years of patent law, international trading, and economic growth.

I'm not conflating anything, the US government, economic scholars, etc are the ones you need to talk to. The US economy is entirely hinged on IP protections because our wages are so high. Without IP protection we would be unable to compete in a global economy without the average worker making 2 dollars an hour. So yes, they do protect the American lifestyles and cost of living.

Think about it all the way through, without IP what would America export that couldn't made elsewhere for 1/10 of the price due to wages???

 

[Acerac]

I would love to see videos of republicans crying hysterically on election night when a democrat won. I can't imagine it exists. The insane hyperbole about the last election was as frustrating as it was hilarious.

lol seriously I bet nobody could find a video like that. Stupid fucking liberals always crying over things, why can't they man up like The Right?

 

[KonradLaw]

I think they're idiots. Not any different than those who claimed Obama would do a coup to get third presidency.

 

[Grinchy]

I wasn’t aware it was a contest.

However as is often the case with hyper partisanship the goalposts shift from
“This doesn’t exist from my side” or
“My side doesn’t do this”
To
“Well if we do do it, it’s not as bad as the other side...”

This of course ignoring that it maybe shouldnt be happened at all on either side.

I'm just here for the comedy, man. That "video" you linked to (while claiming they are "all over youtube") was not an example of hysterical crying that compares in any way to what we saw in the last election from Hillary supporters. There is no "my side" and "your side" going on here. That's just the way you want to perceive it. You might be a little overly sensitive on the subject if you are immediately taking sides and drawing lines in the sand like that.

If you can't admit that there was a lunatic hysteria going on during the last election that had people claiming to break out in hives and scream about the entire world crashing down just because the candidate facebook and twitter told them to vote for lost, then you might be part of the problem. We've never seen such an insane overreaction to an election ever.

 

[JDB]

own the libs tho

 

[mr2xxx]

I'm just here for the comedy, man. That "video" you linked to (while claiming they are "all over youtube") was not an example of hysterical crying that compares in any way to what we saw in the last election from Hillary supporters. There is no "my side" and "your side" going on here. That's just the way you want to perceive it. You might be a little overly sensitive on the subject if you are immediately taking sides and drawing lines in the sand like that.

If you can't admit that there was a lunatic hysteria going on during the last election that had people claiming to break out in hives and scream about the entire world crashing down just because the candidate facebook and twitter told them to vote for lost, then you might be part of the problem. We've never seen such an insane overreaction to an election ever.

We had a sharp rise in militias being formed once Obama took office. Bunch of fragile, mainly white conservative men couldn’t handle a black man in office without thinking it’s the end of the world.

 

[TrainedRage]

We had a sharp rise in militias being formed once Obama took office. Bunch of fragile, mainly white conservative men couldn’t handle a black man in office without thinking it’s the end of the world.

Isn't that from the SPLC? Im pretty sure they are a glorified propaganda paper.

 

[Ke0]

We had a sharp rise in militias being formed once Obama took office. Bunch of fragile, mainly white conservative men couldn’t handle a black man in office without thinking it’s the end of the world.

You'd think 9/11 would result in a huge increase given the jingoist nature of many of your country men yet…only when Obama obtained office did you see a rise. Pretty pathetic. I imagine these are the same people crying about everyone taking their job but then turning around and talking about personal responsibility

 

[XavierDee]

He's too fucking stupid and short sighted to ever become a dictator. The saving grace really.

They said the about Adolf...

 

[haimon]

Pretty good, but not great. Video of hysterical crying would have been more funny than still images. The idea that these people were as hyperbolic as the ones from the Trump election isn't really shown here.

No one as bad as trump has ever been elected.
Though I imagine there was plenty of terrible anger when Obama was voted as president in the KKK meeting that celebrated trump.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

lol at people calling him stupid. yeah had some hit tv shows and business and then became president. truly a dumb guy. you may hate him and his personality but hes not stupid

 

[Papa]

We had a sharp rise in militias being formed once Obama took office. Bunch of fragile, mainly white conservative men couldn’t handle a black man in office without thinking it’s the end of the world.

Come on mate, don’t go throwing graphs like that around without a source.

 

[mr2xxx]

Isn't that from the SPLC? Im pretty sure they are a glorified propaganda paper.

It was the SPLC, couldn’t find anyone else that tracks extremist groups. Why do you feel they are a propaganda paper? Any sources to verify that? Any other sources you know of that track these things?

 

[EviLore]

The SPLC used to be a respectable organization, and I've contributed to them in the past, but their current practices are highly questionable. Take a look at, say, this article: https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right

Like, what in the world?

 

[strange headache]

It was the SPLC, couldn’t find anyone else that [tracks political opponents and labels them as] extremist groups.

There, I fixed that for you.

 

[rokkerkory]

The latest example / evidence of this is stating he is above the law, has absolute pardon powers and even can pardon himself.

Now please tell me if you proclaim yourself above the law, what does that make you?

 

[HStallion]

lol at people calling him stupid. yeah had some hit tv shows and business and then became president. truly a dumb guy. you may hate him and his personality but hes not stupid

You can be rich and still be stupid. Let's not get into his many failed businesses along the way either.

 

[EviLore]

The latest example / evidence of this is stating he is above the law, has absolute pardon powers and even can pardon himself.

Now please tell me if you proclaim yourself above the law, what does that make you?

President of the United States without any pretense of decorum.

 

[BANGS]

You can be rich and still be stupid. Let's not get into his many failed businesses along the way either.

Since when does having failed businesses make you stupid? Go start a business right now, see how long it lasts...

 

[HStallion]

Since when does having failed businesses make you stupid? Go start a business right now, see how long it lasts...

You're right. Failed businesses don't immediately mean your stupid. Trump is still fucking stupid as it gets.

 

[Oner]

The latest example / evidence of this is stating he is above the law, has absolute pardon powers and even can pardon himself.

Now please tell me if you proclaim yourself above the law, what does that make you?

The same as Hillary? ~ https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/if-...ardon-herself-and-congress-might-be-helpless/

 

[Oner]

After Re-reading that it seems to come off as argumentative when it was literally just a question in reply. My apologies.