2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Now it all makes sense.

Looking Ahead: Trump, Ailes, Bannon And Hannity – News Network On The Horizon?
Posted at 2:04 pm on August 17, 2016 by Jay Caruso


Assuming Donald Trump loses to Hillary Clinton (and it's an easy assumption to make), the question many people will ask is, "What's next for Donald Trump?" The answer may very well have been answered already. With Trump bringing aboard Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon to the campaign, it is not out of the realm of possibility that long term plans include a cable news station.

Donald Trump may be a lousy presidential candidate who needs to appeal to a broad range of people to win, but he does know how to market himself to a smaller niche. Trump likes to see his name on in lights. He'd make a huge splash if he created his own cable news network. Having Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon and to a smaller degree, Roger Stone on his side, it is not hard to see where this could be going.

The idea is nothing new. Trump has been floating this for some time. He believes he's providing ratings for other outlets and not being able to collect on any of it. That would all change if he slapped his name on a news network. The best part for Trump is he wouldn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Roger Ailes dismissal from Fox News gives Trump access to the man who created the most successful cable news station on the air.

There are questions to come beforehand but there is no doubt all of this would be thought through before making the leap.

1. Start up costs - It's going to cost billions to launch a cable news network Trump hopes will rival at least CNN and MSNBC and at best, Fox News. Trump doesn't have the money to do it despite bragging about his supposed billions. That said, having Ailes and Bannon on board will help him find investors.

2. On air talent - Guess who's contract expires at the end of 2016? Sean Hannity. Hannity has high ratings for his current show and it doesn't air until 10pm EST. He likely would go up against Bill O'Reilly in the 8pm slot. Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Eric Bolling and Jeanine Pirro are all Trump supporters and could likely be added to the lineup. Breitbart has some personalities who have been on television as well.

3. Filling the time - While a Trump news channel could certainly fill in the 6am to 11pm hours with new content, DTN may gave to go the route of MSNBC and show old "World's Wildest Police Chases" and other schlock programming during the late hours. They could also repeat shows from earlier in the day.

4. Advertisers - This could prove to be difficult. It's a network that will find itself under immediate scrutiny and some advertisers may initially stay away but it's a critical component. Maybe they'll reach out to William DeVane and see what kind of clout he has with Rosland Capital.

Despite all the questions, it could happen. Ben Shapiro is thinking along the same lines:

There’s a reason Breitbart News went from hard-charging news outlet to drooling Trump mouthpiece. Bannon emerges from all of this unscathed. So what’s next on his agenda? If Trump wins, he’s in a position of high power; if Trump loses, Bannon could head up a new media empire with Trump’s support and the involvement of new Trump supporter and ousted former Fox News head Roger Ailes.

We'll certainly know by the end of this year. Stay tuned.
 

E_D_Guapo

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,158
Even for me? Maybe you can enlighten me about what the point of the picture is.
I don't think the point of this meme is necessarily intended to be any sort of broad statement like "Republicans are a bunch of white bigots". Looks to me like it is merely highlighting the inherent irony of this particular situation. If you can't see it try looking a little more closely.
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I don't think the point of this meme is necessarily intended to be any sort of broad statement like "Republicans are a bunch of white bigots". Looks to me like it is merely highlighting the inherent irony of this particular situation. If you can't see it try looking a little more closely.
Maybe I am dense but what it seems to convey to me is tokenism. Perhaps there is something I am missing but the structure is obviously directed at Republicans and the lack of black participation. Coupled by the conversation that there was also a lack is responsibility in seeing that the person was in attendance. This is the way it strikes me and it seems to be a blanket statement. If there is a different meaning it got past me. I am not worked up about it but I think it is improperly directed.
 

E_D_Guapo

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,158
Even irony has a message but it's no biggy I guess.
I mean, there could be something nefarious behind it but it seems like it is just ironically funny. Like a "Buy American" bumper sticker on a Toyota or something.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Don’t Blame Capitalism for Your Pricey EpiPen

Jay Stooksberry
Jay Stooksberry

Thursday, August 25, 2016


In South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, offensive television characters Terrance and Phillip inspire moral indignation within a small Colorado town, sparking a movement of outraged parents who actively organize to censor the actors. Rather than focusing their energy on the individuals in question, the parents launch into an over-the-top campaign (complete with song and dance) targeting the entire country of Canada, where Terrance and Phillip live. Their crusade to “Blame Canada” drives the plotline to equally comedic and ridiculous lengths.

We have a similar short fuse in the United States. Though we don’t launch into full-scale invasions of our quiet northerly neighbors (at least, not yet), many Americans tend to miss the mark when attributing blame for our largest problems and woes. This propensity of impugning ideological strawmen usually places capitalism in the crosshairs of America’s most outraged.

On This Episode of “Blame Capitalism”: The EpiPen

One doesn’t have to look far from today’s headlines to see this pattern. The latest controversy: the price of the EpiPen – Mylan’s famous medical auto-injector that delivers an immediate and measured dose of epinephrine – recently skyrocketed 400%, causing an uproar amongst 3.6 million people who depend upon the prescribed product. For those who live in fear of anaphylactic shock, the cost of living quite literally went up.

Riding the wave of mass outrage, the usual political suspects rise to the occasion.

“There’s no reason an EpiPen, which costs Mylan just a few dollars to make, should cost families more than $600,” tweets Bernie Sanders. (I’ll get to this claim later.)

“EpiPens can be the difference between life and death. There’s no justification for these price hikes,” tweets Hillary Clinton.

The latter comment entails an awe-inspiring amount of irony coming from an individual who charges approximately $200,000 per speech. Her talks most certainly don’t save lives.

But I digress.

The majority of criticisms over this affair have targeted Mylan – and for obvious reasons. Mylan’s CEO Heather Bresch experienced a 671 percent increase in total compensation during the same time frame of the EpiPen’s price hike.

The caricature of the greedy capitalist – pinching and twirling his handlebar mustache with one hand, holding a huge bag of money with dollar signs imprinted on it with the other – almost paints itself. This caricature is, however, greatly diminished based on the inconvenience of Bresch’s gender and complete lack of mustache. Also, her baseline salary is actually quite modest for a Big Pharma executive.

The Free Market That Wasn’t

After finishing off Mylan and Bresch at the gallows, many critics then turned their mob rage toward the philosophical tenets of capitalism.

“The current controversy over the price of the EpiPen, manufactured by Mylan, Inc., is quite instructive with respect to the nature of capitalism,” writes blogger Craig Calcaterra.

Oh, really?

Halle Tecco, professor at the Business School of Colombia, labeled this controversy the “byproduct of free-market capitalism.”

Oh, is it?

What is usually left out in any anti-capitalist blather written in response to this controversy is an accurate depiction of how free markets actually work.

In what other markets can a business jack up its prices without alienating its customers and pushing them toward competitors? Answer: when that market has no other competitors. Emily Willingham of Forbes explained it aptly with a recent article titled, “Why Did Mylan Hike EpiPen Prices 400%? Because They Could.”

In early 2016, Sanofi, Mylan’s primary competitor, discontinued its line of Auvi-Q auto-injectors, similar to Mylan’s product. With Auvi-Q out the picture, Mylan gained 98 market share of epinephrine injectors.

But surely a new business will take advantage of this public relations debacle, enter the market, and offer a more affordable option, right?

Unfortunately – and as no surprise to libertarians and free market advocates – federal regulators continue to buffer the padding that surrounds Mylan’s monopoly. Shortly after the Auvi-Q recall, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries pitched a generic version of the EpiPen. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) squashed their efforts, citing “major deficiencies” in their application. Teva plans to appeal the decision, but won’t be able to effectively move forward until 2017 at the earliest.

Teva isn’t alone in this struggle. Windgap Medical, a Boston startup, and Adamis, a small biotech firm based in San Diego, have both struggled to bypass FDA’s barriers of entry in the marketplace as well.

If you need further convincing that the FDA impedes the market, consider the following:

The average time it takes for a drug to go from the lab to the medicine cabinet is 12 years
Only 1 in 5,000 new drugs will make it through the FDA approval
Based on the regulatory burden of creating new medicine, the average price tag for research and development for a new compound is $2.6 billion
So, no, Bernie – it isn’t always just a “few dollars” to produce a pharmaceutical product. The price tag of producing that “first pill” is often steep.

An Unironic “Thanks Obama”

Mylan’s monopoly was also bolstered by the White House. In 2013, President Obama signed into law the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act. The program incentivizes the school system to stockpile EpiPens by dangling the carrot of federal grant monies in front of financially beleaguered school districts. From the time this bill was introduced to the date it was signed by Obama, Mylan’s stock was up nearly 20%.

But this little piece of legislation pales in comparison to the benefit doled out by the Affordable Care Act. Following Obamacare’s codification, net spending on prescription drugs increased nearly 20%. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry experienced a renaissance era of whirlwind profits: estimates of profits over the next decade range from $10 billion to $35 billion – a hefty door prize for the industry lobbyists who crafted the ACA legislation.

The EpiPen is not a microcosm; the cost of other prescription drugs are also on the rise. A House of Representatives report found that ten different drugs experienced even larger price hikes, starting as low as 420% and as high as 8,000%.

Those companies who “paid to play” are providing a textbook example of crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.

Considering the scope of government intervention in this specific marketplace, rather than blaming the free market for this controversy, a more appropriate response would be “what free market?” And now, lawmakers are ironically “demanding answers” from Mylan. If forced to speak in front of a Congressional panel and asked what inspired this price hike, Bresch and company should be encouraged to hold up a mirror to lawmakers’ faces.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Who the fuck is Jay Stookesberry?

And if you or your child needed an Epi-pen would you be happy with any random pen.

Unless Jay can tell us if these pens were up to snuff this is a baseless argument and the fact still remains that Mylar is capatalizing on the capalist system.

This is a real bait and switch.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Who the fuck is Jay Stookesberry?

And if you or your child needed an Epi-pen would you be happy with any random pen.

Unless Jay can tell us if these pens were up to snuff this is a baseless argument and the fact still remains that Mylar is capatalizing on the capalist system.

This is a real bait and switch.
Because the FDA and their regulations are preventing capitolism. That's why. It's not a bait and switch. It's the truth and a perfect example of how regulations prevent capitolism from working properly.

But it rags on Obama, Hilary and Bernie so I get why you'd think so. The point of the article is absolutely correct. They have no competition because regulations are preventing it. Mylar is capitolizing on regulations that synthetically create a monopoly.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Because the FDA and their regulations are preventing capitolism. That's why. It's not a bait and switch. It's the truth and a perfect example of how regulations prevent capitolism from working properly.

But its rags on Obama, Hilary and Bernie so I get why you'd think so.
There is nothing perfect about this example because he does not know how well those other pens were made.

Are you saying no pharmaceuticals should be regulated?

Should we be like China and let companies slap any label on any drug?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
There is nothing perfect about this example because he does not know how well those other pens were made.

Are you saying no pharmaceuticals should be regulated?
You realize this isn't about the medication right? Its about the delivery tool. And no it doesn't matter how well those other pens worked. The idea of capitolism is that you let those products hit the market and let people decide if the name brand they know is worth the additional money. Which is what holds down pricing.

The price hike isn't capitolism, its the opposite. It's a result of big government. But if you want to argue that it is super safe because of government feel free. Of course pharm companies have a pretty good reason to make sure their products are safe without any government regulation. It's called lawsuits and criminal charges.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Looks like Jay left something out

In early 2016, Sanofi, Mylan’s primary competitor, discontinued its line of Auvi-Q auto-injectors, similar to Mylan’s product. With Auvi-Q out the picture, Mylan gained 98 market share of epinephrine injectors.
http://acsh.org/news/2016/08/25/why-epipen-and-other-off-patent-drugs-are-so-expensive/

But obtaining approvals does add costs and time to competitors attempting to enter the market. One potential EpiPen competitor, Teva Pharmaceuticals, failed to obtain regulatory approval, delaying their entry into the market Another competitor, Sanofi, recalled its competing epinephrine delivery device because it may be delivering in incorrect dosage. That leaves Mylan alone in the market, with the power to raise prices, which is what it did.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Who the fuck is Jay Stookesberry?

And if you or your child needed an Epi-pen would you be happy with any random pen.

Unless Jay can tell us if these pens were up to snuff this is a baseless argument and the fact still remains that Mylar is capatalizing on the capalist system.

This is a real bait and switch.
You must have brain damage if that is your honest take away from that article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom