International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread. (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347945)

gnome 8th May 2022 09:02 PM

"We can start being picky as soon as the liberals are beaten forever"

Ladewig 8th May 2022 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 13801206)
If the libs hate you, you’re the one they want fighting for them. Little else matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13801219)
"We can start being picky as soon as the liberals are beaten forever"

Yes and yes.

Skeptic Ginger 8th May 2022 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13801201)
... lies egregiously on the stand in court."

Well the GOP is the law and order party.

Norman Alexander 9th May 2022 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13801255)
Well the GOP is the law and order party.

THEIR law, DIS-order.

pgwenthold 9th May 2022 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13801201)
I'm sure there will be PLENTY of Georgians who will think "Yep, that's who I want as my representative in government fighting for me! Someone who forgets a whole lot of stuff and lies egregiously on the stand in court."

Well, keep in mind that she also has been kicked off all the committees in congress, so it's not like she has any influence on legislation other than a single vote.

Just what everyone wants for their representative!

Armitage72 9th May 2022 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 13801206)
If the libs hate you, you’re the one they want fighting for them. Little else matters.


Remember how any criticism of Sarah Palin was just proof that "the Democrats are terrified of her"?

gnome 9th May 2022 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13801428)
Well, keep in mind that she also has been kicked off all the committees in congress, so it's not like she has any influence on legislation other than a single vote.

Just what everyone wants for their representative!

The voters she's counting on give precisely zero rat's patooties about that matter.

RecoveringYuppy 9th May 2022 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13801951)
The voters she's counting on give precisely zero rat's patooties about that matter.

I think some people in this thread are having a hard time understanding just how "different" that part of country might be from them.

In 2001 (part of the 21st century most places) the state of Georgia moved out of the 19th century by removing the Confederate Battle Flag from it's state flag. The small city of Trenton, in MTG's district, reacted to that by adopting the former state flag as it's official city flag.

Stacyhs 10th May 2022 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13801962)
I think some people in this thread are having a hard time understanding just how "different" that part of country might be from them.

In 2001 (part of the 21st century most places) the state of Georgia moved out of the 19th century by removing the Confederate Battle Flag from it's state flag. The small city of Trenton, in MTG's district, reacted to that by adopting the former state flag as it's official city flag.

Oh, she'll win again. Some people love to double down on stupid.

Norman Alexander 10th May 2022 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13802248)
Oh, she'll win again. Some people love to double down on stupid.

You mean she will get BOTH the votes this time??

mgidm86 10th May 2022 02:53 PM

https://time.com/6169563/marjorie-ta...ry-challenger/

Quote:

......“It’s Marjorie Taylor Greene against herself,” says Jay Williams, a GOP strategist in Georgia. “She’s not going to lose unless she does something absolutely abhorrent.”
I'd put the laughing dog here but it doesn't want to be associated with psycho lady in any way.

shemp 10th May 2022 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13802849)
https://time.com/6169563/marjorie-ta...ry-challenger/



I'd put the laughing dog here but it doesn't want to be associated with psycho lady in any way.

There is nothing she could do that is so abhorrent that she would lose in that district. She could use a cross to perform a self-abortion in front of everyone in the town square and she'd still win in a landslide.

shemp 10th May 2022 04:25 PM

CAMPAIGN DONORS BOUGHT MTG A $92,000 VEHICLE

Quote:

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene used donors’ campaign contributions to buy herself a luxury vehicle worth over $92,000, FEC records show.

The expenditure will prove controversial as the May 24 primary approaches, not just because of the expensive, swanky nature of the vehicle, but because Greene’s second biggest source of donations is retired Americans—meaning she effectively raided donors’ Social Security checks to buy a tricked-out vehicle from a Buick/GMC dealership.

OpenSecrets.org shows that Taylor Greene’s second biggest “industry” donating to her was “retired,” meaning senior citizens who are increasingly finding themselves cash-strapped as Bidenflation continues to bite hard have been bankrolling her campaign expenditures, including on this high-end vehicle.

Lurch 10th May 2022 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13802853)
There is nothing she could do that is so abhorrent that she would lose in that district. She could use a cross to perform a self-abortion in front of everyone in the town square and she'd still win in a landslide.

While her head rotated, she projectile vomited pea soup and she snarled abuse like one of Satan's demented succubi.

The Don 11th May 2022 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13802887)

She bought a US-made (or at least US-branded) vehicle - that's almost certainly fine in the eyes of her supporters, regardless of where the money came from.

Stacyhs 11th May 2022 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13802887)

Wanna bet it's a truck?

I'm surprised she didn't go for a private campaign jet so she could pretend she's Melania. You just know she fantasizes about being Trump's main ***** grabee.

Disbelief 11th May 2022 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13803149)
Wanna bet it's a truck?

I'm surprised she didn't go for a private campaign jet so she could pretend she's Melania. You just know she fantasizes about being Trump's main ***** grabee.

Only Buick or GMC that expensive would be a Yukon Denali, and I believe it shows that in the link.

Norman Alexander 11th May 2022 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13802887)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13803138)
She bought a US-made (or at least US-branded) vehicle - that's almost certainly fine in the eyes of her supporters, regardless of where the money came from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disbelief (Post 13803285)
Only Buick or GMC that expensive would be a Yukon Denali, and I believe it shows that in the link.

Did it also have a 0.5in HMG pintle-mounted on the back tray?

Disbelief 11th May 2022 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13803299)
Did it also have a 0.5in HMG pintle-mounted on the back tray?

I believe that is a dealer installed option, not available from the factory.

Ladewig 11th May 2022 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13802853)
There is nothing she could do that is so abhorrent that she would lose in that district. She could use a cross to perform a self-abortion in front of everyone in the town square and she'd still win in a landslide.

Voter #1 has donated time and money to the Republican Party for 30 years. His yard is filled withTrump signs. He says “OK, that’s over the line I cannot vote for her.”

Voter #2: “you RINOs make me puke. Never speak to me again.”

And that’s Georgia.


Oh, and the reason they removed the Confederate flag was businesses and organizations around country threatened a boycott.

Stacyhs 18th May 2022 11:26 PM

MTG celebrating release of Pharma Bro from prison. I guess she appoves of price gouging a life-saving medicine by raising its price 5,000%.

Quote:

"I hear Martin Shkreli has been released, having paid his debt to society. 2016 energy everywhere you look!"
In March 2018, after being convicted of securities fraud for scamming investors in hedge funds in 2017, Shkreli, 39, was sentenced to seven years in prison, according to CNBC. Shkreli's release comes after having served less than five years of his sentence and also reflects, CNBC reported, the almost six months he spent in custody before his sentence as well as good behavior while in prison.

Shkreli received the nickname "Pharma Bro" after increasing the price of the lifesaving anti-parasitic drug, Daraprim, by 5,000 percent. The price went from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
(https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-ta...elease-1707938)

Norman Alexander 19th May 2022 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13810439)
MTG celebrating release of Pharma Bro from prison. I guess she approves of price gouging a life-saving medicine by raising its price 5,000%.
(https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-ta...elease-1707938)

She's fine with that if the Dems and RINOs have to pay that price. If she needed it, that would be a gun of a different calibre.

bruto 19th May 2022 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13810468)
She's fine with that if the Dems and RINOs have to pay that price. If she needed it, that would be a gun of a different calibre.

Well, I'm sure she's all for free enterprise, and that's it in spades. Of course in this case health insurance takes most of the hit, but that's all right because I'm betting she's against compulsory health insurance too. So in her ideal world, the poor would not get the drug, and they'd die, and then the law of supply and demand would bring the price back down to only a thousand percent of what it should be, and she could run around saying "the system works, the system works!" and the poor suckers left to vote for her will flock to the polls, thinking, "yeah, the system works, and when I win the lottery I'll be a Shkreli too."

e.t.a. writing this, I think that if "Shkreli" has not yet become an epithet for a certain kind of *******, it really ought to.

Lurch 19th May 2022 07:44 AM

Profiteers nakedly gouging are worthy of the epithet, Shkreli shkum.

JoeMorgue 19th May 2022 07:47 AM

If you invent a wonder drug and charge a lot for it, there's a (somewhat) potential moral debate there because you could argue an expensive drug is at least better than no drug.

But Shkreli didn't invent Daraprim. Gertrude Elion did. In 1953. He's just a bloodsucker.

ponderingturtle 19th May 2022 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13810855)
If you invent a wonder drug and charge a lot for it, there's a (somewhat) potential moral debate there because you could argue an expensive drug is at least better than no drug.

But Shkreli didn't invent Daraprim. Gertrude Elion did. In 1953. He's just a bloodsucker.

You misspelled capitalist hero. He saw a product that had a market that would bear massively higher prices so really isn't it his moral obligation to his shareholders to make the most he can from it? This is just capitalism 101.

Matthew Best 19th May 2022 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13810867)
You misspelled capitalist hero. He saw a product that had a market that would bear massively higher prices so really isn't it his moral obligation to his shareholders to make the most he can from it? This is just capitalism 101.

Did he even have shareholders?

ponderingturtle 19th May 2022 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13810872)
Did he even have shareholders?

Why would his moral obligation to his shareholders change if he was the only shareholder? Maximizing value is the moral good and he was doing that by the price hikes people object to. In doing so they are questioning and undermining the very foundations of capitalism.

Matthew Best 19th May 2022 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13810877)
Why would his moral obligation to his shareholders change if he was the only shareholder?

Not the question I asked.

It's OK to say "I don't know" if you don't know the answer to a question, you know.

TheGoldcountry 19th May 2022 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13810914)
Not the question I asked.

It's OK to say "I don't know" if you don't know the answer to a question, you know.

I thought you were being tongue-in-cheek myself, I think he was answering flippantly.

Really, that's the point: whether they own 1% or 100% of the company, they can always say "I have a responsibility to the shareholders." **** social responsibility.

Matthew Best 19th May 2022 10:17 AM

I guess nobody knows the answer.

Disbelief 19th May 2022 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13810872)
Did he even have shareholders?

He was responsible for hedge funds, so he had investors.

bruto 19th May 2022 11:48 AM

Shkreli was involved with various companies and hedge funds and Turing, the company that raised the price of Daraprim, was a privately held corporation created by Shkreli after his previous company, Retrophin, threw him out over his egregious financial hanky-panky. He also did some hefty price raising there, but not as outrageous as with daraprim. Turing changed its name, and is currently listed as privately held. Since the company still exists without Shkrely directly involved, one must assume other investors, but it's not clear who they are or how much they have in. But court rulings forbid him to have more than an 8 percent share in any pharmaceutical company, and Shkreli still, apparently, has 30-50 million bucks' worth of their stock.

The Wikipedia page on him is rather interesting if dense. He's apparently pretty smart in some ways, but manages to compensate for that by being ten times more nasty. He'd be a pretty poor specimen even without the Daraprim scandal. And, of course, being the sort of thing he is, he comes out of the whole thing still plenty rich enough. Right now, he could put all his money in a mattress, live on a million dollars a year for the rest of his life, and leave a nice estate. The American dream!

Matthew Best 19th May 2022 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disbelief (Post 13811073)
He was responsible for hedge funds, so he had investors.


Not my question.

Norman Alexander 19th May 2022 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13810819)
Well, I'm sure she's all for free enterprise, and that's it in spades. Of course in this case health insurance takes most of the hit, but that's all right because I'm betting she's against compulsory health insurance too. So in her ideal world, the poor would not get the drug, and they'd die, and then the law of supply and demand would bring the price back down to only a thousand percent of what it should be, and she could run around saying "the system works, the system works!" and the poor suckers left to vote for her will flock to the polls, thinking, "yeah, the system works, and when I win the lottery I'll be a Shkreli too."

I don't think EmptyG thinks at all. She just reacts with her crocodile brain stem.

MRC_Hans 20th May 2022 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13811161)
Not my question.

Since nobody seems to understand your question, it might be useful to repeat it with a bit of elaboration.

Hans

newyorkguy 20th May 2022 04:02 AM

1 Attachment(s)
From a Newsweek article, Martin Shkreli operated a hedge fund. It doesn't mention "shareholders," but Shkreli did have "investors." They were the reason he was in prison; he fleeced them.
Quote:

In March 2018, after being convicted of securities fraud for scamming investors in hedge funds in 2017, Shkreli, 39, was sentenced to seven years in prison, according to CNBC. Newsweek link
Politicians like emptyg, Bobo and, another one discussed here recently, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, seem to operate on another wavelength. They regularly make statements that any reasonable person would recognize as being untrue. Apparently they know their main appeal is to a certain subset of voters who want to believe the nonsense they spew whether it's true or not. Another feature of politicians like Greene is, they almost never respond to criticism. They maneuver around that by always being on the attack. They're the embodiment of an old National Football League saying: The best defense is a strong offense.

Pharma bro Martin Shkreli being taken for perp walk by NYPD after his 2017 arrest.

Matthew Best 20th May 2022 06:27 AM

I don't really understand the audience that Greene was trying to appeal to with this. Is there anyone - whether Republican or Democrat - who actually thinks Shkreli is someone to be admired? I thought it was pretty universal that he was a scumbag, who behaved abominably - and illegally. I know her main aim is to annoy liberals, but surely disdain for Shkreli crosses party lines?

Or doesn't it?

TurkeysGhost 20th May 2022 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13811740)
I don't really understand the audience that Greene was trying to appeal to with this. Is there anyone - whether Republican or Democrat - who actually thinks Shkreli is someone to be admired? I thought it was pretty universal that he was a scumbag, who behaved abominably - and illegally. I know her main aim is to annoy liberals, but surely disdain for Shkreli crosses party lines?

Or doesn't it?

I think Shkreli is a remote enough figure that it doesn't really matter for most people. It's essentially celebrity gossip, not a material issue, in which case being a contrarian gets MTG's name back in the press.

KDLarsen 20th May 2022 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13811740)
I don't really understand the audience that Greene was trying to appeal to with this. Is there anyone - whether Republican or Democrat - who actually thinks Shkreli is someone to be admired? I thought it was pretty universal that he was a scumbag, who behaved abominably - and illegally. I know her main aim is to annoy liberals, but surely disdain for Shkreli crosses party lines?

Or doesn't it?

I'd imagine there's a fair few free-market libertarians who saw nothing nothing wrong in hiking the price of drugs, thinking the owner and manufacutrer of a product has every right to name the price of the product he/she is selling.

Edit: See also the recent legislation on an insulin cost cap, in which 193 Republicans saw nothing wrong in diabetics facing extortion-like costs in obtaining medicin they need to live, in some case peddling horrific falsehoods in the process. Oh, and said legislation is doomed to die in the Senate.

bruto 20th May 2022 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 13811535)
Since nobody seems to understand your question, it might be useful to repeat it with a bit of elaboration.

Hans

I suspect the issue is that Shkreli had many things going on, and the fact that the hedge fund had investors does not mean the drug company did. It looks from what I've read that it did, but because all of Shkreli's drug companies were and are privately held, the details are sparse.

One of his other companies, Phoenixus, pretty definitely has other shareholders, as there was a bit of a flap when the remaining shareholders of the company tried, without success it seems, to stop him running it from prison. The NYT article is behind a paywall, but it states that he has or had 44 percent of Phoenixus shares.

It appears that Vyera Pharmaceuticals, the successor to Turing, may now be out of business, but things are very confusing, and it seems likely that it has been folded into its parent company Phoenixus. Who invested in Turing seems not to be available.

JoeMorgue 20th May 2022 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13811740)
I don't really understand the audience that Greene was trying to appeal to with this. Is there anyone - whether Republican or Democrat - who actually thinks Shkreli is someone to be admired? I thought it was pretty universal that he was a scumbag, who behaved abominably - and illegally. I know her main aim is to annoy liberals, but surely disdain for Shkreli crosses party lines?

Or doesn't it?

1. She's a troll and trolls fall back on "contrarian" when they don't have anything else to do.

2. For a person like her you can tweak the Republicans and the Libs as long as you tweak the Libs more. They are fine with collateral damage, they still win in the end.

Mark the Hiker 20th May 2022 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13811636)
From a Newsweek article, Martin Shkreli operated a hedge fund. It doesn't mention "shareholders," but Shkreli did have "investors." They were the reason he was in prison; he fleeced them.


Politicians like emptyg, Bobo and, another one discussed here recently, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, seem to operate on another wavelength. They regularly make statements that any reasonable person would recognize as being untrue. Apparently they know their main appeal is to a certain subset of voters who want to believe the nonsense they spew whether it's true or not. Another feature of politicians like Greene is, they almost never respond to criticism. They maneuver around that by always being on the attack. They're the embodiment of an old National Football League saying: The best defense is a strong offense.

Pharma bro Martin Shkreli being taken for perp walk by NYPD after his 2017 arrest.

It's like Scientology - "Always attack, never defend."

Matthew Best 20th May 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13811844)
I suspect the issue is that Shkreli had many things going on, and the fact that the hedge fund had investors does not mean the drug company did. It looks from what I've read that it did, but because all of Shkreli's drug companies were and are privately held, the details are sparse.

One of his other companies, Phoenixus, pretty definitely has other shareholders, as there was a bit of a flap when the remaining shareholders of the company tried, without success it seems, to stop him running it from prison. The NYT article is behind a paywall, but it states that he has or had 44 percent of Phoenixus shares.

It appears that Vyera Pharmaceuticals, the successor to Turing, may now be out of business, but things are very confusing, and it seems likely that it has been folded into its parent company Phoenixus. Who invested in Turing seems not to be available.

Thanks for that. After I asked the question I had a quick google, but I couldn't figure out if Turing Pharmaceuticals was just a one-man operation or if it had shareholders. I don't really know much about American company law or structure, and am not much inclined to find out, so I appreciate you doing your best to explain it.

angrysoba 20th May 2022 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13811740)
I don't really understand the audience that Greene was trying to appeal to with this. Is there anyone - whether Republican or Democrat - who actually thinks Shkreli is someone to be admired? I thought it was pretty universal that he was a scumbag, who behaved abominably - and illegally. I know her main aim is to annoy liberals, but surely disdain for Shkreli crosses party lines?

Or doesn't it?

Some right-wingers love him because he is almost a parody of an evil greedy businessman who triggers the libs.

gnome 20th May 2022 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDLarsen (Post 13811744)
I'd imagine there's a fair few free-market libertarians who saw nothing nothing wrong in hiking the price of drugs, thinking the owner and manufacutrer of a product has every right to name the price of the product he/she is selling.

The libertarian argument would be that being able to successfully sell at inflated price incentivizes more manufacturing and production, which brings the price down naturally and quickly, and it would work too, if the government stopped sticking their nose in. Of course, to that ideologically pure free market mindset any failure of the market to work in an ideal manner can only be the government's fault. Not because, you know, there's a path of hurricane devastation in the way of potential new suppliers, or something like that.

slyjoe 20th May 2022 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13812237)
The libertarian argument would be that being able to successfully sell at inflated price incentivizes more manufacturing and production, which brings the price down naturally and quickly, and it would work too, if the government stopped sticking their nose in. Of course, to that ideologically pure free market mindset any failure of the market to work in an ideal manner can only be the government's fault. Not because, you know, there's a path of hurricane devastation in the way of potential new suppliers, or something like that.

LIbertarians are always wrong. If you start with that assumption it will serve you well.

newyorkguy 20th May 2022 05:50 PM

1 Attachment(s)
TV reporter Rick Folbaum is a news anchor at WGCL, the CBS affiliate in Atlanta. This past week he interviewed emptyg as she campaigned in Northwest Georgia. Folbaum tried to get Greene to talk about some of the controversial statements she's made about Jewish people. This followed a report from the Anti-Defamation League "documenting a 133% rise in anti-Semitic incidents in Georgia, including in Greene’s 14th District,” Folbaum said. He asked Greene if she ever worried that some of her past statements, considered offensive by many Jewish people, could inadvertently be contributing to the problem.
Quote:

“No, I am not contributing. You’re lying about me,” Greene shot back when asked the question. “You don’t even know what my words were.” CBS Atlanta news link
When she was shown a Facebook post from 2018, in which emptyg claimed the Rothschild investment firm was using space lasers to start wildfires in California, she dismissed it as being "before she entered politics."

bruto 20th May 2022 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13812237)
The libertarian argument would be that being able to successfully sell at inflated price incentivizes more manufacturing and production, which brings the price down naturally and quickly, and it would work too, if the government stopped sticking their nose in. Of course, to that ideologically pure free market mindset any failure of the market to work in an ideal manner can only be the government's fault. Not because, you know, there's a path of hurricane devastation in the way of potential new suppliers, or something like that.

The incentivization argument dies a-borning in the case of a drug that is patented.

Gord_in_Toronto 21st May 2022 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13812417)
The incentivization argument dies a-borning in the case of a drug that is patented.

Surely as a libertarian you can't be in favour of patents? Government interfering in business practices. BAH!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.