***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

China doesn't use blueprints to bootleg either. If they did you would actually be able to buy a good fake Rolex.

Items are taken to factories in China and are cosmetically faked. Don't imply it's the us's fault that things are being bootlegged there because that's tom foolery

There are many ways to create fake products, from 3rd shift items coming from factories using legit drawings but substandard materials, to reverse engineering real items to create comparable versions. I think we have a grey market expert here

And yes, if US companies weren't willing to risk their IP in exchange for higher profits, it would have been much more difficult for Chinese manufacturers to have access to that information.

If companies like United Technologies weren't willing to sell military grade equipment to China knowing that the only thing they would risk were ridiculously low fines ($75 million) compared to what they bring in, the US wouldn't have to worry about their hegemony.

We have more CEOs who want their companies to be like Walmart than we have who want to be like Costco, and they should share the blame for the current state of affairs in the country instead of looking for scapegoats.

 

[nephew]

I know it's an option but if you know as much as you say you do they have factories out there that just replicate and that's all they do, wether it's technology, jewelry or textile. You don't need a Louie vuitton blueprint to replicate the bag.

I agree with you saying it is easier to replicate something if you have a blueprint but the industry would still be there due to the laws in that country. And like you said reverse engineering is the typical standard with the Chinese, and that goes with retail products to spy planes along with other military secrets.

 

[Belgium]

UK's government straight up giving zero dambs 

Passing the most extreme surveillance law in a modern democracy and then exempting themselves from it. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s.../news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html

 
Politicians have exempted themselves from Britain's new wide-ranging spying laws.

The Investigatory Powers Act, which has just passed into law, brings some of the most extreme and invasive surveillance powers ever given to spies in a democratic state. But protections against those spying powers have been given to MPs.

Most of the strongest powers in the new law require that those using them must be given a warrant. That applies to people wanting to see someone's full internet browsing history, for instance, which is one of the things that will be collected under the new law.

For most people, that warrant can be issued by a secretary of state. Applications are sent to senior ministers who can then approve either a targeted interception warrant or a targeted examination warrant, depending on what information the agency applying for the warrant – which could be anyone from a huge range of organisations – wants to see.

But for members of parliament and other politicians, extra rules have been introduced. Those warrants must also be approved by the prime minister.

That rule applies not only to members of the Westminster parliament but also politicians in the devolved assembly and members of the European Parliament.

The protections afforded to politicians are actually less than they had hoped to be given. Earlier in the process, the only amendment that MPs had submitted was one that would allow extra safeguards for politicians – forcing any request to monitor MP's communications to go through the speaker of the House of Commons as well as the prime minister.

Whether intelligence agencies should be allowed to spy on politicians has been a contentious part of recent surveillance legislation. For many years, discussions between politicians and their constituents had been treated as off-limits – and they are still seen as "sensitive" under the new legislation – but those protections have been gradually rolled back.

Internet connection records – a history of every website that someone has visited, but not every page – will still be collected for MPs, since they will be done en masse by internet providers for all of their customers. But they won't be able to be accessed without a warrant.

 

[whywesteppin]

Thanks to Americans shareholders and CEOs who were looking for cheap labor and didn't mind moving factories there. It's not like it wasn't known that to do business in China, you had to share your IP and that they would undercut you the moment they could.

It's fun to watch you guys turn against the very system you champion the moment it no longer serves your interests.

Your so wrong it isn't even funny. China actually has no intellectual property laws so that's why that happens. Educate yourself before spewing complete and utter nonsense

Which implies that your IP is accessible to all.

Which implies that if you go there to get stuff made, be prepared to have your blueprints borrowed to make bootlegs priced at a cheaper price than your authentic stuff.

And what part of American executives looking for cheap labor is wrong? Are they still not doing it by outsourcing everything they can and by replacing workers with automation?

Just because you don't like the sound of what you hear doesn't make it any less true.

Unbridled capitalism is conservatives' number 1 priority.

Until corporations start trying to make money by taking advantage of cheaper labor markets.

Somehow this whole philosophy that the free markets work themselves out and find a perfect balancing point is no longer a rallying cry when it's no longer a politically convenient narrative.

It's ok for corporations to maximize profits because somehow that'll trickle down, but when they also try to minimize prices so people with **** manufacturing jobs can still afford their clothes and TVs and cell phones, it's no longer ok.

 

[Coromanti]

must be a lost in translation thing...but China has to know we're just pretending with them for their sake over a "pride/respect" thing

Tha

 
UK's government straight up giving zero dambs 

Passing the most extreme surveillance law in a modern democracy and then exempting themselves from it. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s.../news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html

 
Politicians have exempted themselves from Britain's new wide-ranging spying laws.

The Investigatory Powers Act, which has just passed into law, brings some of the most extreme and invasive surveillance powers ever given to spies in a democratic state. But protections against those spying powers have been given to MPs.

Most of the strongest powers in the new law require that those using them must be given a warrant. That applies to people wanting to see someone's full internet browsing history, for instance, which is one of the things that will be collected under the new law.

For most people, that warrant can be issued by a secretary of state. Applications are sent to senior ministers who can then approve either a targeted interception warrant or a targeted examination warrant, depending on what information the agency applying for the warrant – which could be anyone from a huge range of organisations – wants to see.

But for members of parliament and other politicians, extra rules have been introduced. Those warrants must also be approved by the prime minister.

That rule applies not only to members of the Westminster parliament but also politicians in the devolved assembly and members of the European Parliament.

The protections afforded to politicians are actually less than they had hoped to be given. Earlier in the process, the only amendment that MPs had submitted was one that would allow extra safeguards for politicians – forcing any request to monitor MP's communications to go through the speaker of the House of Commons as well as the prime minister.

Whether intelligence agencies should be allowed to spy on politicians has been a contentious part of recent surveillance legislation. For many years, discussions between politicians and their constituents had been treated as off-limits – and they are still seen as "sensitive" under the new legislation – but those protections have been gradually rolled back.

Internet connection records – a history of every website that someone has visited, but not every page – will still be collected for MPs, since they will be done en masse by internet providers for all of their customers. But they won't be able to be accessed without a warrant.

They're fools to think the spy agencies won't spy on them anyway. Five eyes all work together. They routinely spy on each other's citizens and governments on behalf of each other to circumvent rules about spying on their respective populations.

Anyone else get Chancellor Sutler vibes from this?

 

[whywesteppin]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/harvard-trump-clinton-campaigns-fight-232109

Clinton allies like David Brock have been actively recruiting Democratic donors to fund an anti-Trump movement modeled on the armada of organizations that sued, flacked, opposition-researched and insulted Clinton into a 55 percent disapproval rating. Trump is already there, but Brock and other Democratic operatives are contemplating a Freedom of Information Act barrage against the president-elect comparable to the one undertaken against Clinton by the conservative group Judicial Watch. Other left-leaning groups, including the Center for American Progress, are looking into ways of holding Trump accountable for his job-creating campaign promises — possibly by disseminating reports on the president’s record directly to voters and media into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that swung surprisingly to Trump.

gonna get interesting

[emoji]128133[/emoji][emoji]128133[/emoji][emoji]128133[/emoji]

 

[nephew]

They just won't give it up.. the Democratic Party is in shambles and all they do is keep Nancy pelosi and try to fund a movement that isn't beneficial for anything lol. No chance of anyone coming together for the benefit and it's pretty pathetic.

They can keep trying to force a candidate like Clinton no one can relate to as long as they want but it's not going to work.

 

[whywesteppin]

can someone close the door? i swear i just felt a breeze blow through.

 

[ninjahood]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/harvard-trump-clinton-campaigns-fight-232109

Clinton allies like David Brock have been actively recruiting Democratic donors to fund an anti-Trump movement modeled on the armada of organizations that sued, flacked, opposition-researched and insulted Clinton into a 55 percent disapproval rating. Trump is already there, but Brock and other Democratic operatives are contemplating a Freedom of Information Act barrage against the president-elect comparable to the one undertaken against Clinton by the conservative group Judicial Watch. Other left-leaning groups, including the Center for American Progress, are looking into ways of holding Trump accountable for his job-creating campaign promises — possibly by disseminating reports on the president’s record directly to voters and media into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that swung surprisingly to Trump.

gonna get interesting

[emoji]128133[/emoji][emoji]128133[/emoji][emoji]128133[/emoji]

David brock can't even get donor money for Democrats cuz they torched so much on Clinton & she lost

 

[IATT]

 

[rolaholic]

@ the administration having to reassure China that Trump doesn't know any better right now

 

[the red model]

 
Tha

They're fools to think the spy agencies won't spy on them anyway. Five eyes all work together. They routinely spy on each other's citizens and governments on behalf of each other to circumvent rules about spying on their respective populations.

Anyone else get Chancellor Sutler vibes from this?

Sounds like O'Brien from the inner party too.

 

[dathbgboy]

They just won't give it up.. the Democratic Party is in shambles and all they do is keep Nancy pelosi and try to fund a movement that isn't beneficial for anything lol. No chance of anyone coming together for the benefit and it's pretty pathetic.

They can keep trying to force a candidate like Clinton no one can relate to as long as they want but it's not going to work.

This is that same ol "we know what's good for you" mentality. They aren't listening because u know, some people swear they know everything

 

[RustyShackleford]

The Dems listened, just look at the party's and Clinton's platform. The ideological battle was won.

It is probably the most progressive it has been since FDR.

Clinton being the candidate is a non issue. She won the primary.

Purity testing each other over the next couple months is not gonna go the left any favors. Trump has already shown he is an outright buffoon at will flip flop at will, the party needs to be unified to check him.That is how the GOP was able to strip Obama of most of the political power with a year or being election, and used the white nationalist wave of the Tea Party to completely destroy in in 2010.

I opposed to funding an most anti trump movement. That money could be better spent building the infrastructure of the party. But, having a Republican finally having to face some of the petty nonsense the left, especially the Clintons, have had to face is gonna be hilarious.

The Democratic party needs to hold onto its platform, and focus on a 50 state strategy. For every progressive that thinks the party doesn't listen to them, their is a moderate thinking the same thing.

 

[nephew]

Yeah she won the primary but the dnc had her in the bag the whole time.. that was all exposed. They straight up blackballed Bernie internally from jump. Project veritas showed us a lot of the inner workings of things over there and they have some mending to do before they can come together and do what's in their best interest to win.

The money could definitely be used better lol.. that's the problem with that party.. they don't know where to put money to effectively make a difference.

And seriously, Nancy pelosi again? I don't believe you can favor her for anything but fundraising. She is ineffective

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yeah she won the primary but the dnc had her in the bag the whole time.. that was all exposed. They straight up blackballed Bernie internally from jump. Project veritas showed us a lot of the inner workings of things over there and they have some mending to do before they can come together and do what's in their best interest to win.

The money could definitely be used better lol.. that's the problem with that party.. they don't know where to put money to effectively make a difference.

And seriously, Nancy pelosi again? I don't believe you can favor her for anything but fundraising. She is ineffective

Bernie lost because of the black vote. This is reality

What you're trying to just is fantasy.

Also, on the flip side, Keith Ellison is the front runner for DNC chair, seemingly just because he is a progressive populist.

 

[gry60]

"President-elect Donald Trump told Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte that he is going about his controversial fight against drugs "the right way," Duterte said."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/trump-duterte-phone-call/index.html

 

[SC kid]

 

[deleted]

That Obama impersonation is flawless

Or did they just use old clips?

 

[dathbgboy]

Yeah she won the primary but the dnc had her in the bag the whole time.. that was all exposed. They straight up blackballed Bernie internally from jump. Project veritas showed us a lot of the inner workings of things over there and they have some mending to do before they can come together and do what's in their best interest to win.

The money could definitely be used better lol.. that's the problem with that party.. they don't know where to put money to effectively make a difference.

And seriously, Nancy pelosi again? I don't believe you can favor her for anything but fundraising. She is ineffective

Bernie lost because of the black vote. This is reality

What you're trying to just is fantasy.

Also, on the flip side, Keith Ellison is the front runner for DNC chair, seemingly just because he is a progressive populist.

You don't think this whole "progressive" thing is being played up to something and falling short?

 

[deleted]

You don't disband the team just because you lost at the Super Bowl

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yeah she won the primary but the dnc had her in the bag the whole time.. that was all exposed. They straight up blackballed Bernie internally from jump. Project veritas showed us a lot of the inner workings of things over there and they have some mending to do before they can come together and do what's in their best interest to win.

The money could definitely be used better lol.. that's the problem with that party.. they don't know where to put money to effectively make a difference.

And seriously, Nancy pelosi again? I don't believe you can favor her for anything but fundraising. She is ineffective

Bernie lost because of the black vote. This is reality

What you're trying to just is fantasy.

Also, on the flip side, Keith Ellison is the front runner for DNC chair, seemingly just because he is a progressive populist.

You don't think this whole "progressive" thing is being played up to something and falling short?

Sorry brah, I wanna make sure I understand the question, what specifically are you asking. Lil confused.

-Here my feelings on the DNC chair position, maybe it will answer your question. My views is that the DNC chair position really shouldn't be a ideological position. They don't write the parties platform, their main job is infrastructure and strategy. I would take a center right moderate Democrat as party chair if he was going to do it full time, be impartial, and focuses on a 50 state strategy.

You hear progressive talking about they don't want this or that person because were they worked this place, is too centrist, or some other buzzword.

As long as everyone gets a far chance, it am cool with that. This was one of the positives of Howard Dean, famb just let Obama and Clinton go at it in 2008. He didn't have a dog in the race. He helped progressives and blue dogs equally, down ticket.

Progressives are already winning the ideological battle in the Party, I really don't know what other fight needs their needs to be had.

Competency needs to be top priority with the DNC chair position. Dean was competent, Kaine and DWS weren't.

If this didn't answer your question, let me know.

 

[dathbgboy]

Yeah she won the primary but the dnc had her in the bag the whole time.. that was all exposed. They straight up blackballed Bernie internally from jump. Project veritas showed us a lot of the inner workings of things over there and they have some mending to do before they can come together and do what's in their best interest to win.

The money could definitely be used better lol.. that's the problem with that party.. they don't know where to put money to effectively make a difference.

And seriously, Nancy pelosi again? I don't believe you can favor her for anything but fundraising. She is ineffective

Bernie lost because of the black vote. This is reality

What you're trying to just is fantasy.

Also, on the flip side, Keith Ellison is the front runner for DNC chair, seemingly just because he is a progressive populist.

You don't think this whole "progressive" thing is being played up to something and falling short?

Sorry brah, I wanna make sure I understand the question, what specifically are you asking. Lil confused.

-Here my feelings on the DNC chair position, maybe it will answer your question. My views is that the DNC chair position really shouldn't be a ideological position. They don't write the parties platform, their main job is infrastructure and strategy. I would take a center right moderate Democrat as party chair if he was going to do it full time, be impartial, and focuses on a 50 state strategy.

You hear progressive talking about they don't want this or that person because were they worked this place, is too centrist, or some other buzzword.

As long as everyone gets a far chance, it am cool with that. This was one of the positives of Howard Dean, famb just let Obama and Clinton go at it in 2008. He didn't have a dog in the race. He helped progressives and blue dogs equally, down ticket.

Progressives are already winning the ideological battle in the Party, I really don't know what other fight needs their needs to be had.

Competency needs to be top priority with the DNC chair position. Dean was competent, Kaine and DWS weren't.

If this didn't answer your question, let me know.

Pretty much did. I agree that there needs to be more of a centrist in the party and they need to remain neutral. Progressives are drinking their own Kool-Aid right now and the party is allowing their strong influence which will not be good in the long run, I believe Hillary losing is a perfect example of that. Progressives want "equality" but their actions speak otherwise.

 

[hand2handking]

regrets 

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yeah she won the primary but the dnc had her in the bag the whole time.. that was all exposed. They straight up blackballed Bernie internally from jump. Project veritas showed us a lot of the inner workings of things over there and they have some mending to do before they can come together and do what's in their best interest to win.

The money could definitely be used better lol.. that's the problem with that party.. they don't know where to put money to effectively make a difference.

And seriously, Nancy pelosi again? I don't believe you can favor her for anything but fundraising. She is ineffective

Bernie lost because of the black vote. This is reality

What you're trying to just is fantasy.

Also, on the flip side, Keith Ellison is the front runner for DNC chair, seemingly just because he is a progressive populist.

You don't think this whole "progressive" thing is being played up to something and falling short?

Sorry brah, I wanna make sure I understand the question, what specifically are you asking. Lil confused.

-Here my feelings on the DNC chair position, maybe it will answer your question. My views is that the DNC chair position really shouldn't be a ideological position. They don't write the parties platform, their main job is infrastructure and strategy. I would take a center right moderate Democrat as party chair if he was going to do it full time, be impartial, and focuses on a 50 state strategy.

You hear progressive talking about they don't want this or that person because were they worked this place, is too centrist, or some other buzzword.

As long as everyone gets a far chance, it am cool with that. This was one of the positives of Howard Dean, famb just let Obama and Clinton go at it in 2008. He didn't have a dog in the race. He helped progressives and blue dogs equally, down ticket.

Progressives are already winning the ideological battle in the Party, I really don't know what other fight needs their needs to be had.

Competency needs to be top priority with the DNC chair position. Dean was competent, Kaine and DWS weren't.

If this didn't answer your question, let me know.

Pretty much did. I agree that there needs to be more of a centrist in the party and they need to remain neutral. Progressives are drinking their own Kool-Aid right now and the party is allowing their strong influence which will not be good in the long run, I believe Hillary losing is a perfect example of that. Progressives want "equality" but their actions speak otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a progressive and I like the party's ideological march in that direction. On economic and social issues.

But everyone needs to remember than the Democrats are the big tent party. Even if you disagree with someone ideologically, that person is still your political ally.

Differences need to be worked out in fair and accessible primaries. Then everyone comes together for the general.