How Republicans win in 2024

This is how Republicans need to clean house to easily win in 2024: 

Trump will need to bow down and endorse DeSantis, who will elect Musk as his VP.

There are all sorts of alternative universes that can play out, but I believe mine is the single one that makes enough of the coalition happy to garner all the votes. Trump would "play behind the scenes" and enough of his die-hard followers will bend the knee to their next leader. The reason why it's a necessity for Trump to bow down is because that will attract enough establishment type voters (both liberal and conservative) to go Red because they're unhappy with the economy, and most of them just want right wing politics that's calm. 

DeSantis already has a big bump from midterms, so he can ride that into the election. Democrats can only now claim "but orange man used to be bad?" with a faint whimper. 

Musk is simply the libertarian vote to prevent any spoiler 3rd party candidates [is that the word?]. 

All that being said, keep in mind I am not coming at this from any bias, I think everyone is garbage and I'm on team "eating popcorn while watching the world burn, on Hulu." We also live in Illinois (for the most part), so our votes don't mean Jack [thinking about Biden whispering "listen here...Jack" into my ear as he grabs my shoulders]. 

Let's do some rapid fire Q/As: What will certain Trumper's think? Will they be mad? Who cares, they probably will vote DeSantis anyway. What about Abortion? Conservatives should probably tone that rhetoric down since they "won." Will enough people switch teams? You can never grab all the voters, especially these days. I believe there are more libertarians emerging in the younger generation and those are the votes Republicans need to garner. When does all this need to happen? Asap, now, right this second. Can Republicans win any other way? Probably, but this is the hands down the easiest path to victory. What are the chances of it unfolding exactly like you say? This is a "stars aligning" sort of scenario, and I have no faith that anything like what I described could happen. Trump will probably get bitter if he's forced out and refuse to endorse anyone. If Repubs have their hands on whatever puppet masters they're grasping at, this is the future they should try to carve. But since none of us are conspiracy theorists... *nervously looking around trying to spot lizard people*...we can safely assume that that indeed some dumb curve ball is going to fly our way and mix things up as per usual.

PS: there's no way you can debate me on this. You have to at least give me some credit that this is a spot on take. Put politics aside and let me be right for once in the last half decade...at least tell me you're devil's advocating me after a brief praise.

Free market Explanation

A series of exchanges between people which don't require the intervention of a bureaucrat, gives people the freedom to trade resources, skills and time. Morally speaking, this is the correct way to conduct business. Government pointing a gun at your head to make sure you follow their rules for engaging others is not moral.

We do not need a government to tell you who you can marry, or which car to buy at the risk of sending you to jail. We don't need a government to tell companies the best way to engage with others. By no means does government know the answer to how the market should operate, and neither does the average person.

Exploitation only happens when government is the one who is forcing you into a job you don't want to do. In the free market, if you are unhappy with the relationship you came into, you are free to leave somewhere else. Companies compete with each other in many ways, and one of the biggest means of competition is that of appealing to workers/customers. I'm not going to work for a company that beats their workers when the company down the street offers ice cream instead of beatings. I'm not going to purchase from a company that pollutes a person's lake.

Any time you hear about 'free market failing,' it's always incorrect information. There's always some government collusion involved.

Fake News Controversy

I'm opposed to all this cracking down on fake news stories. Are people this lazy now that they can't google something if they're skeptical?

With this sort of mentality, people are going to start flagging stuff just because they subjectively decided it was fake. I say leave everything open so we can scrutinize it.

I want extremists of both sides to show themselves so we know what they think. I want an open dialogue to talk about ideas I might not have heard. When you start this type of arbitrary flagging, at what point do you draw the line? What happens when people start flagging simply because they disagree with someone else's viewpoint? This will lead to more restrictions on free speech and isn't going to make the general population any smarter. It's up to you to tell others when they've been lied to, don't rely on Facebook to do it for you.

Start conversations with people, educate them. I would agree that most of the world is ignorant about a lot of things, that does not mean we should give up our freedoms so a higher authority can control our speech. A website releases a fake story, a dozen of us should be in the comments section giving evidence for why it's false, or make a news article of your own to counter that story.

All work and no play

Should you support creative people when you disagree with their politics? For instance, there is an actor who performs remarkably, but they have a stance on political issues that you disagree with. Would giving them your money be justifiable?

This is mainly directed towards conservative mindsets because creative people tend to lean left and are vocal about their politics. This does not mean people who lean left don't feel the same way...what do you think of the movie: American Sniper. Directed by a very conservative Clint Eastwood?

I recently saw a movie that was very enjoyable and had nothing to do with politics. In real life, I know the actor is very liberal, so that changes my perspective while I watch the movie. Even thought I disagree with their philosophy, should I still support them because I enjoy their work?

Who are you voting for and why?

With the elections coming up, there's a lot of controversy on who the next president should be. In all likelihood, it's either going to be Clinton or Trump. I know, the majority of the public is dissatisfied with these choices, so let's skip all the drama about how you hate both candidates. In reality, you will never have a perfect candidate that fits your ideologies perfectly, but you still have to make a decision ---  choose the lesser of two evils, the one that best matches your perspectives, or abstaining from voting completely.

3 caveats:

Lesser of 2 Evils - If you choose to vote for the party that you're used to, chances are that you won't be subscribing to what you prefer to the most from your candidate. You see that the other side is going to be too harmful for the country, so you feel obligated to vote against that person. This is often going to lead to the 'status quo' and lead the country at a stable pace in one direction. In the short term, it'll work for you, but will it be what you want from your country in the long term?

3rd Party - Whether it's Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or yourself, you will be more aligned to these candidates than what the majority of the country has chosen. The problem with third parties is (in my opinion) they will never succeed in taking over the general election. They might come very close to getting to the presidency, but the 2 main parties will change their ideologies to make sure that won't happen.  Example --- too many people think that libertarian principles are what many people think is correct, the Republican party will adapt to make sure they can get those votes. Same with many progressive principles, the Democratic party will reform to get those votes as well. In the end, third party votes are a 'protest vote' to address the main 2 parties that the general public wants something different.

Not Voting - If you choose this option, chances are...you've given up on the political system. Nothing wrong with taking this approach, maybe you don't care to deal with politics and just want to live your life or you've lost faith in our government. Even if that's the case, you still have influence in how our nation runs, so you're not completely free from dealing with this issue. You still have influence over the people you interact with, who will vote in certain ways depending on what you say.

My vote goes to Trump because ---

His background - I recently became a conservative, and I think Trump had the same revelation. It's also used as an attack by many conservatives that he's really a liberal because he held liberal principles before and recently became conservative. This can mean he's a moderate who can draw both sides to him. A lot of parallels can be drawn with Reagan.

He is not Hillary - This is the "Lesser of 2 Evils" vote. In my opinion, Hillary will be a 3rd term of Obama, and I don't think he did the best job of running our country in the last 8 years. I want someone different who can take us in a new direction.

Conservative Principles/Business Experience - Limited government and free market principles. This is what I'm skeptical of the most with Trump. Will he actually be a conservative when it comes to market, or will he rely on government to make sure things work? Many people say that Hillary is actually a more free market person, but I don't know enough about her ideologies (fill me in if you know more). Since Trump has spent so much time in the business world, I would think he can provide the best expertise in how our economy should run.

Trump's Personality - Many people are highly against how he acts, but I see it as a plus. I like the masculine/authoritarian approach to things. I can see how many can be thrown off by it as well. In my opinion, we've lived with too much of the feminine approach to things, so we need a masculine "fatherly" figure for our country.

Can you change my mind? - Of course! I always look for reasons to why I should think differently. I don't absorb information that fits perfectly with what I think, I prefer stuff that counters my current ideologies so I can reform my way of thinking if it's needed.

Unsafe Space Guidelines

This is a political discussion group. You will hear many points of view from people of different political, religious, and philosophical stances. Obviously this can lead to a lot of turmoil, so here are some guidelines you should follow to make sure we all try to be respectful of everyone.

Guidelines

1. You are here to learn new perspectives, convincing others of why you are right is secondary.
2. Do your research before responding to factual posts. Supply links that you have thoroughly read to defend your arguments.
3. Images with captions are strongly discouraged. If you post graphics or videos, be sure they are not intended to provoke the other side.
4. Don't let your emotions take over. If you are angry, take a few minutes off to figure out why you are upset and respond if you have to. Passive aggressive posts are strongly discouraged. Try not to call people racists, sexists or bigots unless you provide valid reasons.
5. Try to focus on the arguments, and not the individual. Your criticisms should be as productive to the discussion as possible.

Introduction post

If you are new here, feel free to make an intro post to talk about yourself and explain a few of your ideologies. It is not necessary to make a post, but it would help people who aren't aware of your background to get a sense of where you align on the political spectrum.

Leaving Comments

Do not make a new comment if you are replying to another person's comment. Press "Reply" under the comment you are talking about and address their points. If you want to make a new comment about the post in general, feel free to start a new comment thread. This is to keep things concise and easy to read so others can follow along better.

The Demonization of Martin Shkreli

I was against him initially, much like most of the general public.  Even when I started becoming more conservative, I still had a bad impression of Martin because of how heavily he was vilified.  After doing some research, that all changed.  My new position --- what he did was not only legal, but in fact, a very ethical and beneficial thing for society.

Both Bernie and Hillary disavowed him and most likely won’t change their minds.  Donald blasted him, saying he’s a “spoiled brat.”  During the Apple/San Bernardino issue, Donald was wrong to boycott them, but seemed to have eased up on it.  Eventually, Martin endorsed Donald and they seemed to have patched things up.  It’s impossible to be informed about every facet of life, so we have to allow people to take incorrect stances at times, but try to be open minded and have a conversation whenever these disagreements arise.

The facts

• Toxoplasmosis is a common food-borne disease that most negatively afflicts people with weakened immune systems (such as HIV, cancer, transplant patients etc).  
• 10-30% of the United States population is infected with toxoplasma gondii, however most individuals can fight off the infection naturally. Typically only those who don’t have a strong immune system can’t.
• Owning ≥ 3 kittens and exposure to certain raw or undercooked meats/dairies associated with increased risk of Toxoplasma gondii infection in United States
• Toxoplasmosis Encephalitis (TE) - Severe complication of the infection that causes inflammation of the brain.
• Daraprim is a drug approved in 1953 to treat toxoplasmosis.  It cures toxoplasmosis with a set number of pills.
• Side effects that may occur with Daraprim include megaloblastic anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, hematuria, allergic reactions, tongue changes, blood in the urine, heart rhythm disorders, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, insomnia, headache, lightheadedness, or dry mouth.
• Martin Shkreli is an American entrepreneur and pharmaceutical executive. He is co-founder of the hedge fund MSMB Capital Management, co-founder and former chief executive officer (CEO) of the biotechnology firm Retrophin, and founder and former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals.
• 2,000 people need Daraprim
• Daraprim was raised from $13.50 to $750 per pill by Turing Pharmaceuticals.
• 60%-70% of Daraprim given away for free by Turing Pharmaceuticals via promotions.

Why did he raise the price of Daraprim?

There has not been new progress with fighting toxoplasmosis since it was released.  To gain interest with investors, capital is needed to start research and development (R&D).  New findings can help prevent current side effects (listed above) of treating toxoplasmosis.  This is how our system works (the most innovative and efficient in the world) to help people live longer and not suffer.

Why bother?

Some argue that Daraprim doesn’t need to be updated because it has been helping people since the 1950’s.  Like most anti-infective agents, mutations are possible/likely and eventually won't work, so we must constantly be trying to find newer and better ways of fighting of illnesses.  If we don’t do this, our futures will be riddled with panic and rushing to find antidotes for things we could have figured out a long time ago.  Imagine a slightly out of control fireplace, eventually it’s going to engulf your whole house when you could have taken precautions to stop the fire from having a chance to spread.

The specific research that Martin is focussing on could be a groundbreaking thing for cancer treatments and other serious diseases.  Our current and most common methods of treating cancer are “chemical”, which target your whole body, basically destroying everything in order to fight off the cancer. Daraprim works like this too, and if Martin can figure out how to target toxoplasmosis without seriously affecting other parts of your body, this can revolutionize therapies for other disease states.

How does the price increase affect people who need Daraprim?

2,000 people who were affected had to do some minor changes in their insurance.  Turning offered special promotions of 1 cent or free for those who could not afford the drug.  No one that needs Daraprim has died or had complications because they could not get the drug.

Some may claim that if the media backlash didn’t occur, Turning would not have offered to give the drug away for free.  This becomes a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”  No matter what you do after such a media backlash, there’s no way to recover because you already have a bad reputation with the public.  At this point, why would any company want to do actual good things if the people don’t care to change their minds?  In a free market, businesses have to provide a good product at a good price, but are not necessarily entitled to be charitable.   It’s hard to speculate what would’ve happened if there was no backlash (would they have given it away regardless?), which is why it comes down to --- is Martin a bad person and only does what benefits him?

Is Martin a bad person?

Short Bio - Raised by immigrant parents who worked as janitors in Brooklyn.  Dropped out of high school.  Developed an interest in chemistry when a family member suffered from treatment-resistant depression.

There’s no question that he’s flamboyant and flaunts his wealth, which upsets a lot of people.  It seems as though there is an unspoken rule among the wealthy to steer away from the public light, because when you show any signs of being proud of what you’ve done in life and the wealth you accumulated, the world starts hating you.  The only way you can ‘redeem’ yourself is to give away most of your wealth, but it’s not even a guarantee to fix anything because your public image has already been scarred.  Bill Gates had this problem in the 90s, and Martin looked up to him in those years.  

Wu Tang Album - An album titled “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin” was purchased by Martin for $2M after being on auction for a while without interest.  Many fans of the rap group were infuriated because he purchased it.  Based on Martin’s videos, he’s not interested in WT, but decided to buy the album anyway.  In an interview with Milo, Martin explain that there’s not much of a difference between someone who has $100M and someone who has $1B.  People who are this wealthy are always at the process of giving their money away, but the public doesn’t want to give them the benefit of doubt because they don’t do it fast enough.  It’s clear that Martin spends his money on frivolous things, and that is a good thing.  When large sums of money are spent on the market, it benefits all of us because newer and better products will be created from it.  Wu Tang will have the capital to make more albums which benefits the fans.

Youtube Channel - Martin creates free educational videos about finance and chemistry.  It’s safe to say that he’s well educated and knows a lot about his field so the content he provides is valuable.  Teaching people who want to learn and doing it for free is one of the most generous things you can do in life. (he doesn’t accept donations)

Looking at his news interviews, you get a sense that he might have had some forms of social problems in the past.  It’s clear that he’s trying to smile and appear happy, but it comes across as ‘fake’.  People get put off by this and start thinking he’s evil just because of the way he looks.

Born in poverty, dropped out of high school to pursue life saving medicine, spends money on R&D, spends money on frivolous things,  has no intentions of hoarding, and provides educational content for free.  These are not the signs of someone who has ill intent for this world.

So why do people hate him?

The main culprit is media that smeared Martin as an “evil vulture capitalist who raised the price of an AIDS/cancer curing drug by 5000%”.  These headlines draw a lot of eyeballs to the screen, so obviously all media organizations are going to dog pile on this story.  Nothing wrong with shedding light on actual bad deeds that people do, but in this case it was a misguided atrocity.  They did not have a conversation with Martin, he was already guilty because of the few pieces of ‘evidence’ they gathered.

Virtue signaling from the general public also played a big role.  People no longer want to do actual good in the world, they just want to appear like they’re good people.  Slapping a graphic on your facebook avatar and saying you support ‘this cause’ only helps yourself and gets your friends to call you a good person even when you didn’t do anything.  This kind of simplistic thinking is why Martin appears like the bad guy.  People only look at his appearance and demeanor, instead of his actions and motives.  “I have a bad feeling about him, therefore he must have ill intent.”

This is not to say that there aren’t problems with the pharmaceuticals.  Martin was just not an example of the corruption that does take place.  You might have an argument that this has shed some light on a potential problem, but is that a good reason to hate a person who was nothing more than a scapegoat?

Articles

Why would Martin Shkreli hike an old drug price by 5000%? Only a 'moron' would ask

Turing Reduces Cost of Daraprim® (pyrimethamine)

Medical Sources

Toxoplasmic encephalitis during mycophenolate mofetil immunotherapy of neuromuscular disease

Dynamed: Toxoplasmosis

Facts and Comparisons: Daraprim

Micromedex: Daraprim

Videos

Martin Shkreli: "The Truth About Daraprim"

Turing CEO Martin Shkreli Talks 5,000% Drug Price Hike (Full Interview) | CNBC

Shkreli: It's unethical to drag me in front of Congress to plead the 5th

Martin’s Youtube Channel

The Milo Yiannopoulos Show: Episode 4 - Martin Shkreli

If some details are incorrect, please cite a source that goes against what I wrote and I will make corrections.  Any ethical/philosophical points I made do not need sources as a rebuttal, just write counterpoints of where you disagree.