United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[mrttao]

Yes, so? That's not the only post you responded to and quoted, is it?

You accused me of making 2 distinct separate strawmen. I could only deal with so much stupidity so I focused on the 1 strawman. And you are still doubling down on your ridiculous claims

Also, you're ignoring that I was responding to an actual discussion of multiple posts, not just that specific one. Context matters.

That is so much bullshit and you know it.

1. All context shows is that you are projecting. Because either you are arguing that graft makes things better, or you are strawmanning everyone who says graft is bad into instead saying things like "F35 is useless" or "it is better to not have a military-industrial complex"

2. you were literally explicitly both quoting and replying to a definitive statement of trying to cut through the bullshit with a simple and definitive "you can do anything you want without graft and it will be better"

All you had to do is saying that you misread or something. but no, you are doubling fucking down on the retardation.

 

[Bear Ribs]

You accused me of making 2 distinct separate strawmen. I could only deal with so much stupidity so I focused on the 1 strawman. And you are still doubling down on your ridiculous claims

Because my claims are correct. I never brought up Trickle Down economics, I pointed out that the technology developed does trickle down, and provided a lengthy list of examples. Your position regarding trickle down conomics was a strawman since I did not endorse trickle down economics.

That is so much bullshit and you know it.

1. All context shows is that you are projecting. Because either you are arguing that graft makes things better, or you are strawmanning everyone who says graft is bad into instead saying things like "F35 is useless" or "it is better to not have a military-industrial complex"

2. you were literally explicitly both quoting and replying to a definitive statement of trying to cut through the bullshit with a simple and definitive "you can do anything you want without graft and it will be better"

All you had to do is saying that you misread or something. but no, you are doubling fucking down on the retardation.

Because my claims are correct. I pointed out that while he claims said technologies could have been developed without an MIC that has corruption, he has no way of proving it since it would require an alternate universe.

It's easy to make such a claim, harder to prove since no such alternate universe is available. I'll note you, too, have provided no examples, no proof of any kind except vague insinuations that there were times some nations, somewhere, sometime, had zero graft. Why don't you go ahead and give your examples and show us how those examples produced advances in technology? Or... you could retract your bullshit strawman.

 

[mrttao]

Because my claims are correct. I never brought up Trickle Down economics, I pointed out that the technology developed does trickle down, and provided a lengthy list of examples. Your position regarding trickle down conomics was a strawman since I did not endorse trickle down economics.

I will grant you that you were discussing trickle down technology, not trickle down economics. Although the two are closely related.

But you are literally arguing that this is a defense for your position on graft (despite doubling down on it). which is so retarded that I am forced to conclude you must be a troll. As no human can possibly be so stupid.

"You misrepresenting my position on trickle down technology, therefore my position on graft cannot be attacked. it is simply forbidden"

What kind of retarded logic is this?

 

[mrttao]

Because my claims are correct. I pointed out that while he claims said technologies could have been developed without an MIC that has corruption, he has no way of proving it since it would require an alternate universe.

> You need an alternate reality to prove that politicians stealing money to line their pockets harms the R&D this money is supposed to finance.

lol, lmao even.

wait... no... on more careful read. you are right back to the strawman of BUNDLING graft with defense contractors.
You are literally replying to the argument of graft-free defense contractor, with a bundling that implies that the person you are replying to is actually advocating for not having defense contractors at all.
You are literally making a strawman WHILE crafting about being strawmanned.

Aside from all that:
No, you don't need an alternate reality, you simply need to look at other instances in history where defense contractors worked without graft. or where there was even more graft. Examples of both were given. (USA defense contractors in the past operating without graft. Russia in the present operating with 1000x more graft than usa. respectively).

You do not need to compare "project X on year Y" to "same, but in alternate universe". Instead you can compare project A to project B. Compare enough projects with and without graft and you will see that... graft hurts projects. shocking, I know. (something any child could conceptualize)

 

[Rocinante]

> You need an alternate reality to prove that politicians stealing money to line their pockets harms the R&D this money is supposed to finance.

lol, lmao even.

wait... no... on more careful read. you are right back to the strawman of BUNDLING graft with defense contractors.
You are literally replying to the argument of graft-free defense contractor, with a bundling that implies that the person you are replying to is actually advocating for not having defense contractors at all.
You are literally making a strawman WHILE crafting about being strawmanned.

Aside from all that:
No, you don't need an alternate reality, you simply need to look at other instances in history where defense contractors worked without graft. or where there was even more graft. Examples of both were given. (USA defense contractors in the past operating without graft. Russia in the present operating with 1000x more graft than usa. respectively).

You do not need to compare "project X on year Y" to "same, but in alternate universe". Instead you can compare project A to project B. Compare enough projects with and without graft and you will see that... graft hurts projects. shocking, I know. (something any child could conceptualize)

It really is weird to be on a thread on a mostly right wing site that scrutinizes everything the government does, and multiple people are literally defending the graft.

And using the "they make the money back" idea as an excuse for it at that, even though the tax payers who's money was squandered on bribes and money laundering don't get any of that back.

But I guess some of the tech trickles down, so all the corruption is totally fine.

It's ridiculous.

 

[Bear Ribs]

> You need an alternate reality to prove that politicians stealing money to line their pockets harms the R&D this money is supposed to finance.

lol, lmao even.

wait... no... on more careful read. you are right back to the strawman of BUNDLING graft with defense contractors.
You are literally replying to the argument of graft-free defense contractor, with a bundling that implies that the person you are replying to is actually advocating for not having defense contractors at all.
You are literally making a strawman WHILE crafting about being strawmanned.

Aside from all that:
No, you don't need an alternate reality, you simply need to look at other instances in history where defense contractors worked without graft. or where there was even more graft. Examples of both were given. (USA defense contractors in the past operating without graft. Russia in the present operating with 1000x more graft than usa. respectively).

More strawmen. I don't and have never defended graft. If the word shows up in your post, you're already strawmanning me.

I pointed out that the technology from military R&D does in fact trickle down and benefit the civilian sector, with a long list of examples ranging from tampons to the internet. Thus to a degree, we really do recoup the tax money spent on military research even if planes sold don't give every person a tax rebate. Anything else is your fever dreams because you don't understand that the phrase "trickle down" doesn't always refer to Reagan's economic policy.

You do not need to compare "project X on year Y" to "same, but in alternate universe". Instead you can compare project A to project B. Compare enough projects with and without graft and you will see that... graft hurts projects. shocking, I know. (something any child could conceptualize)

If there're so many Project As and Project Bs to compare, and they prove your point so well, why not show them to us instead of having to throw down imaginary letters and vague allusions? Show us your proof. Tell us when we saw as much advancement from a nation without a robust MIC as a similar nation with one.

 

[Zachowon]

More strawmen. I don't and have never defended graft. If the word shows up in your post, you're already strawmanning me.

I pointed out that the technology from military R&D does in fact trickle down and benefit the civilian sector, with a long list of examples ranging from tampons to the internet. Thus to a degree, we really do recoup the tax money spent on military research even if planes sold don't give every person a tax rebate. Anything else is your fever dreams because you don't understand that the phrase "trickle down" doesn't always refer to Reagan's economic policy.


If there're so many Project As and Project Bs to compare, and they prove your point so well, why not show them to us instead of having to throw down imaginary letters and vague allusions? Show us your proof. Tell us when we saw as much advancement from a nation without a robust MIC as a similar nation with one.

The idea of mechanized warfare with APCs was kinds Soviet Unions thing.
Germany on ww2 had plenty if advancements. Rocket tech.
Uh...that's about it

 

[Bear Ribs]

The idea of mechanized warfare with APCs was kinds Soviet Unions thing.
Germany on ww2 had plenty if advancements. Rocket tech.
Uh...that's about it

Pretty sure both of those had a Military Industrial Complex, though. We're looking for somewhere that doesn't have any military contracts or government grants for military research but still manages modern USA levels of technological innovation.

 

[Zachowon]

Pretty sure both of those had a Military Industrial Complex, though. We're looking for somewhere that doesn't have any military contracts or government grants for military research but still manages modern USA levels of technological innovation.

Yeah I got nothing.

 

[Rocinante]

Pretty sure both of those had a Military Industrial Complex, though. We're looking for somewhere that doesn't have any military contracts or government grants for military research but still manages modern USA levels of technological innovation.

No the fuck we aren't. For the record, @mrttao was accurately defending my position: that we can have all those nice things without the graft and corruption. YOU are being dishonest, and claiming that people are arguing for no MIC. At no point have I done such a thing, nor has your other debate opponent. If we want to talk straw men, this is a key example of one. You completely fabricated that claim and now you're arguing against it. Do better, @Bear Ribs.

No, we are arguing for a MIC without corruption and graft, because that's an inefficient use of our tax dollars, and you people are like "they'll make money back" and "we need an alternate reality to prove that less corruption is a good thing."

 

[Bear Ribs]

No the fuck we aren't. For the record, @mrttao was accurately defending my position: that we can have all those nice things without the graft and corruption. YOU are being dishonest, and claiming that people are arguing for no MIC. At no point have I done such a thing, nor has your other debate opponent. If we want to talk straw men, this is a key example of one. You completely fabricated that claim and now you're arguing against it. Do better, @Bear Ribs.

No, we are arguing for a MIC without corruption and graft, because that's an inefficient use of our tax dollars, and you people are like "they'll make money back" and "we need an alternate reality to prove that less corruption is a good thing."

Oh really? Then quote me where I said we couldn't have nice things without graft and corruption. I accurately pointed out that advanced technology usable by the private sector come from the MIC and you immediately strawmanned me as claiming we needed graft when I did no such thing and actively argued against graft.

 

[Rocinante]

Oh really? Then quote me where I said we couldn't have nice things without graft and corruption. I accurately pointed out that advanced technology usable by the private sector come from the MIC and you immediately strawmanned me as claiming we needed graft when I did no such thing and actively argued against graft.

You responded to: "All of which can be accomplished without lining the pockets of politicians and foreign nations with bribes that are funded with our tax dollars" with a challenge to that claim.

I was agreeing that all these benefits come from the MIC. But hold that that we can eliminate corruption, and then you challenged it.

 

[Bear Ribs]

You responded to: "All of which can be accomplished without lining the pockets of politicians and foreign nations with bribes that are funded with our tax dollars" with a challenge to that claim.

I was agreeing that all these benefits come from the MIC. But hold that that we can eliminate corruption, and then you challenged it.

Translation: You can't actually show what I asked for so you're reverting to a strawman again. I "challenged" it? Bullshit I did. My post literally said we'd have even more benefits without graft.

This "challenge" is entirely from your imagination because you can't answer any of my points. I pointed out that you'd need to actually prove some of that for your argument to be sound, which you can't do without visiting an alternate universe where there's no such graft. This means anybody else can easily knock your argument down, so I wanted you to reframe things in a way that was bit more solid than cotton candy. From there I got a barrage of bullshit, even so far as mrtao claiming that the words "trickle down" meant I was supporting Reagonomics... which obvious untruth still hasn't been retracted because you and he would rather play with your straw dollies than provide a scrap of proof anywhere and ya'll just keep ignoring inconvenient points like that.

 

[mrttao]

But I guess some of the tech trickles down, so all the corruption is totally fine.

I had a thought about that.

Tech trickles down when govt pays scientists directly to create stuff and then releases that tech to the public.
Ex: NASA
I keep on seeing stuff "invented by nasa" sold to public. I never saw the same with lockheed martin.

Lockheed Martin is a private company, they lock down all their tech with patents. Private companies could research it before, but now it is illegal for them to do so as the patent is already owned.
This is actually the opposite of trickling down.

 

[Cherico]

I had a thought about that.

Tech trickles down when govt pays scientists directly to create stuff and then releases that tech to the public.
Ex: NASA
I keep on seeing stuff "invented by nasa" sold to public. I never saw the same with lockheed martin.

Lockheed Martin is a private company, they lock down all their tech with patents. Private companies could research it before, but now it is illegal for them to do so as the patent is already owned.
This is actually the opposite of trickling down.

A patant can only last a maximum of 20 years.

 

[mrttao]

A patant can only last a maximum of 20 years.

In theory. and 10 years for medical patents.
In practice they always somehow extend them because of corruption.
It is called evergreening.

Why People with Diabetes Can't Buy Generic Insulin - 03/18/2015

A generic version of insulin, the lifesaving diabetes drug used by 6 million people in the United States, has never been available in this country because drug companies have made incremental improvements that kept insulin under patent from 1923 to 2014. As a result, say two Johns Hopkins...

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

basically
> make slow incremental improvement to keep it forever under patent
> bribe FDA and senators to put regulatory hurdles for anyone trying to sell a generic of last decade's version of the drug
> result: patents forever

Because you can't just up and make and sell a version of insulin from 10 years ago. no. you need at least 10 years of trials on your specific version even if it is a copy of another version.

Part of the issue is that patents are just ideas. even though they are explicitly not supposed to be just ideas, they are. They should be technical specs that would let you reproduce the item in question. instead in reality they are a vague description, with the actual production method being a trade secret.

There have also been cases of companies just being granted duplicate patents to an older expired patent. because why the fuck not.

also happens in other fields of IP than patents.
Disney for example keeps on bribing politicians to mess with copyright laws to extend its own copyrights.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Honestly in my POV if I was running the defense procurement my policy would be simple. If the government paid for its development the government owns the rights or at least the percentage of it that was government funded but baring exceptional circumstances the company that developed it will be the one who gets the contract. Ditto with medical stuff albeit there it would be you get a 10 year patent but any attempt to extend it will be denied and the government will have compensated in full accounting for inflation of every cent it helped provide for the research.

 

[mrttao]

Honestly in my POV if I was running the defense procurement my policy would be simple. If the government paid for its development the government owns the rights or at least the percentage of it that was government funded but baring exceptional circumstances the company that developed it will be the one who gets the contract. Ditto with medical stuff albeit there it would be you get a 10 year patent but any attempt to extend it will be denied and the government will have compensated in full accounting for inflation of every cent it helped provide for the research.

Pretty much agreed all around.
I would also go and add a stipulation that patents should include technical documents necessary for reproduction.

If the govt is acting as your enforcer, it better be in exchange for detailed instructions on how to make more of it without you once the patent expires.

 

[Zyobot]

Just when you thought Zombie Joe couldn't get even worse:

 

[DarthOne]

FBI Advised Hunter Biden Investigator to Withhold Information from House Committee

FBI Advised Hunter Biden Investigator to Withhold Information from House Committee

A letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has surfaced, revealing that the agency advised a supervisory agent involved in the investigation of

trendingpoliticsnews.com

A letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has surfaced, revealing that the agency advised a supervisory agent involved in the investigation of Hunter Biden to "decline to respond" to questions from the House Oversight Committee about the ongoing case. The letter obtained by the New York Post was sent by FBI general counsel Jason Jones just hours before the agent was due to testify.

The House Committee was seeking information about the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden. The FBI's letter emphasized that the Department of Justice (DOJ) expected the agent to refrain from disclosing non-public information likely covered by executive privilege or other significant confidentiality interests, particularly information about ongoing law enforcement activities.

​

This directive raised eyebrows, as it appeared to limit the transparency of the investigation process.

"The Department expects that you will decline to respond to questions seeking non-public information likely covered by one or more components of executive privilege or other significant confidentiality interests, in particular information about deliberations or ongoing investigative activity in law enforcement matters," wrote Jones.

"Consistent with longstanding practice, this will afford the Department the full opportunity to consider particular questions and possible accommodations that may fulfill the Committee's legitimate need for information while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests," the letter continued.

The letter also confirmed details of the investigation previously shared by two IRS agents. These details include that Hunter Biden's legal team was tipped off about a planned approach to interview him in December 2020 regarding his failure to pay millions in taxes on foreign income.

The letter, which described the Hunter Biden case as "ongoing," used the same terminology as Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, raising concerns among congressional Republicans. They believe that this choice of wording is a deliberate attempt to impede their requests for records and testimony. Consequently, tensions between the FBI and the House Committee have escalated, with Republicans accusing the FBI of intentionally obstructing their investigation.


Hunter Biden's legal team is of the opinion that their client's legal troubles have come to an end after he recently entered a plea deal, which resulted in probation, for two misdemeanor tax fraud charges and a felony charge related to gun possession. This plea deal has sparked controversy, as critics argue that it is too lenient considering the gravity of the charges.

While an FBI spokesperson asserted that the letter was a "standard practice" preceding an employee's testimony, another source characterized it as "unusual." The timing of the letter and its extensive wording were cited as reasons for this view. The discrepancy in opinions has further fueled the controversy surrounding the investigation.

The name of the FBI agent was redacted in the shared copy of the letter, deepening the mystery surrounding the case. House committees led by Republicans are currently investigating allegations made by two IRS whistleblowers. These individuals claim that President Biden's appointed US attorneys prevented Weiss from pursuing charges in Southern California and Washington, D.C. If these allegations are substantiated, it could have significant implications for the Department of Justice's integrity.

The IRS agents, both with over a decade of experience, are expected to testify publicly before the Oversight Committee.

The FBI agent involved in the investigation of Hunter Biden was told by the FBI just hours before he was set to testify to the House Oversight Committee to *not* respond to their questions about the president's son.

Just more collusion by the FBI to protect the Biden Crime family.

According to a letter obtained by the New York Post, FBI general counsel Jason Jones sent a letter on Sunday to the FBI special agent who investigated Hunter Biden, pressuring him not to testify to the House Oversight Committee.

"[T]he Department expects that you will decline to respond to questions seeking non-public information likely covered by one or more components of executive privilege or other significant confidentiality interests, in particular information about deliberations or ongoing investigative activity in law enforcement matters," the letter read.

The agent appeared to ignore the demand by the FBI and proceeded to confirm multiple allegations made by IRS whistleblowers including that Hunter Biden evaded millions in taxes and was tipped off about an interview.

Dismantle the FBI.