I thought Uncommitted was a smart use of the primaries.

More generally, obviously much more critical than in the election itself. But getting the right candidates in the primary, and pushing all candidates to be better in all the usual ways. They’re never going to chase us to the left like they chase to the right, so we have to do the work and set the boundaries.

Choosing to treat anyone who thinks otherwise as too stupid to realise this is exactly why Trump might win. Please stop.

The Democrats do not have a realistic chance of winning against Trump because the Democrats are entirely incapable of challenging power. It’s the fundamental contradiction of liberalism. They won’t do anything for the people they need to vote for them because if they do the people who fund them will stop funding them.

Obama and Sanders both excelled at small-dollar donations, of course. Sadly, Obama was a silver-tongued coward and the Clinton Democrats made sure she didn’t repeat the mistakes of 2008 in 2016 by not bothering to sign up voters in case they killed her in the primaries again.

They dig their own grave and they do so willingly because it makes them exceedingly rich.

You know the article has words in it that aren’t in the headline?

And that if you actually care about Biden winning, you need to engage with these arguments or at least have the good sense to STFU for fear of alienating people even further?

Removed by mod

Learn to read, comprehend what you read, think about what you read, and then avoid saying stuff that gets you the exact opposite of what you want. FFS

Demanding that people vote for the least worst option without any content other than sneering at them for apparently not realising that one of the options is worse, is doing exactly that.

It’s straw-manning the arguments of people who want (and desperately need) the Democrats to be better and are putting serious thought, time and energy into how that is possible in a world controlled by billionaires who unleash fascism the moment their power is threatened.

And they’re doing it with a lazy, cynical, Bill Maher-wannabe take because apparently they think this is a good look?

They’ll be the death of us all.

Yeah, if you’re going to comment you would, ideally:

1. read the article

2. comprehend what it is saying

3. respond to it

Knee-jerk hand-waving is not useful. It’s worse than just a waste of your time and ours, you are actively alienating everyone you desperately need to hold their nose and vote for Biden.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Obediently voting for the least worst option means you eventually run out of good options. <- we are here

The conundrum is working out how you force those options to get better without accelerationists getting to test out their theories for real (again).

I would respectifully suggest that “shut the fuck up and vote” does not cut it.

They get away with it if the people they attack are less powerful than they are, yeah. Power is a thing.

No it doesn’t. The dean who made this decision, as with most people in stable positions of power, does not need telling what to do because he will do it anyway.

Rutledge clerked for Clarence Thomas, and is featured in a painting included in ProPublica’s reporting on Republican donor Harlan Crow’s gifts to the Supreme Court Justice.

The article is not arguing that it should have been any different. The sub-editor had a bad day and that’s OK.

You can learn to swim in water that is shallow enough to stand in. And if being safe in the event of a pychopathic ‘prank’ is the primary concern, focus on learning how to tread water. Everything will seem easier once you know for sure that you can keep your head above water. Most people who are enjoying a pool or the sea are not actually swimming anywhere anyway.

lol

Good grief. You don’t need to wave your hands so wildly, this is really fucking simple maths. Expenditure which is 21% of the total cannot possibly be the reason why USians pay 2-3 times more than everywhere else for drugs.

They’ve been working on this for years, an opportunity to schism gracefully was offered in advance. In the UK, they’ve allowed individual congregations to decide what can happen in their church building(s), and individual clergy to opt out of officiating.

That’s a mind-numbingly obvious point which completely ignores the context, which is Pharma justifying their high prices based on the amount they spend on R&D.

The rest of the world gets drugs 2-3x cheaper than the US. Do you imagine they’re selling at a loss to everywhere else?

I don’t know which jurisdiction you’re in but, while it isn’t illegal in the UK, you’re absolutely right about it being a bad idea and you are correct about the reason. In the event of a crash, it could count against you (in the UK, at least).

It doesn’t cost that much because the company are making a hefty profit, of course. And much more profit off it in the US as per usual, the NHS pays considerably less

The deal struck [in 2021] with Novartis Gene Therapies, secures the drug for NHS patients in England at a substantial confidential discount and paves the way for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to publish draft guidance recommending treatment with Zolgensma.

The terms of the deal mean that some young children that currently fall outside the NICE recommendation criteria will also be eligible to be considered for treatment by a national multidisciplinary clinical team (MDT) made up of the country’s leading experts in the treatment of SMA.

This means as many as 80 babies and young children could potentially benefit from the life-changing gene therapy a year.

But profiteering aside, the number in the final paragraph is your answer. Up to 80 kids in the UK per year, so up to ~400 in the US, ~500 for the EU. It’s not a big market but the cost of drug development doesn’t get cheaper just because the number of cases is small, it gets more difficult and more costly. And there’s more than one drug company chasing the market.

None of that is a defence of Pharma. But it is inevitable under capitalism. Eat the rich etc etc.

What percentage would be right?

Given that they’re using the cost of R&D to justify their prices? A lot more than 21%.

The rest of the world gets much lower prices. That’s not out of the goodness of their hearts or the generosity of their wallets, yaknow?