Except the guys who go their chance to be the "anti-Romney" were all guys that the far right were buying into. Pawlenty was never going to be that guy. It's the reality Perry has to embrace now. He's not a tea party darling so he isn't going to get the chance to be the far right candidate and while the establishment likes him, they never liked him as much as Bush or Rubio. He was struggling to pay his campaign staffers with no reason to think money was out there to be had. He was smart to walk away.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He kept us safe. <a href="http://t.co/Plq9Hm7caE">pic.twitter.com/Plq9Hm7caE</a></p>— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) <a href="https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/644542458735525888">September 17, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So from talking to all my right wing friends today, there seems to be backlash against Trump. Maybe he is going to take a hit after all.
No, these were Trump supporters going in last night. I'd call them tea partiers with something between xenophobia and flat out racism running through their brains. These are people I'd been arguing with about Trump.
1) They loved Carly Fiorina 2) They thought Trump was donkey 3) Were surprised at how he dodged all specifics...still. He'll still have his core xenophobic base for sure.
First thing is first, who is electable... From a purely presentation standpoint... Rubio is the best speaker and delivers every time. He looks and feels the most presidential to me. Fiorina may be a rock, but a serious delivery that is electable. Trump is a donkey, but very electable because he is pure entertainment. Ben Carson feels like a real person who tries to solve problems. All of the others probably have no chance. As for who is actually going to be a good President. I don't know enough yet. But Fiorina seem like someone who will do something and take action. Not sure about Rubio as he is such a good talker it makes you wonder if he's a doer to. I think Hillary is still the more electable President, and the most qualified, but she does have the tragic Clinton flaw of trying to cover up her flaws. And that could end up in a mess. It's a quality most of us have, but it can be a big problem as Americans don't like cover ups at all. We'll let you f' up, but don't lie to us.
Interesting. Maybe he will start to take some hits in the polls. His consistent lack of specificity and details last night really was almost like performance art. My wife and were watching the debate and going "How can this be real?"
Here's the thing with Trump. As entertaining as he is, his schtick gets tiring. He's pretty much peaked out IMHO. He is all hot air and no substance and even his ardent supporters are gonna have difficulty defending him after months and months of this. And his past history of being so close to the Democrat party is slowly being unveiled as well. That certainly won't help him. When the marginal candidates start to drop out (like Jindal, Santorum, Paul, Huckabee,etc), their supporters aren't going to go to Trump...they're gonna go to one of the other candidates besides Trump. Trump is so polarizing, I can't see people who don't like him suddenly changing their minds and supporting him. Meanwhile, the candidate left who surges (Bush, Rubio, Fiorina, Christie, Kasich, Carson) will get the majority of those still switching allegiances or making up their minds.
Yeah the whole "Sure I know nothing at all right now, but after youse guys vote for me and before I become president, I'll learn it all. I'll blow your mind with how much stuff I'm gonna learn about stuff" routine is just so ridiculous I can't believe anyone would buy it.
Didn't watch the debate, because I find that CNN, Fox and most past hosts are on the same level when it comes to topic of debate and formats. It's pretty crazy that Trump got 13 direct questions Huckabee got 3. I wish they change up the format completely and be more creative about it. If any of you ever play chess, you know the idea of using a chess clock. Instead of a allocated amount of time for each response, one idea is everyone get a set amount of time and whenever they talk, their clock run. When they run out, they are dead (muted), so they need to manage it carefully. On topic that is important to them, they can go on and on and for those not, they can limit their response. Embrace technology and social media and allow that to drive the topic of discussion. Real time fact check that each and every candidate see with a counter. When they reach a certain number (lie for 5 times), they are penalized with a reduced timing or a period of silence. Keep it up (lie for 10 times) and they are dead (muted). I'm sure there are many other ideas. I would watch and I think many other, especially younger folks, would if it's on topic they care about, if it's hosted well and if lying are kept in check... and it's fun to see a competitive edge to it with the chess clock.
Clinical research at TCH. Some of my closest friends are also in research and/or are physicians. If Huckabee's comment was meant to generate increased funding, i agree with him. However it seemed to be born from ignorance, much like Trump's comments about vaccines and autism.
I just came from a temporary role at a biotech company that sells equipment. I was in contact with many pharmas & biotech companies, and worked closely with their process flows and projects. The profit is to treat symptoms and create cures that require patients to come back many times for treatment. I am not saying the repeat treatments are a bad thing. I don't want to get into great detail here. As quoted by an executive I talked with: "Symptoms will always come. Cures are a one-time profit". There are many symptoms, and not many cures. If you want to compare the money proportions (do I have it? no); I am sure it is staggering. Company R&D spending dwarfs the labs that are looking for cures. A nice quote about the global pharmaceutical analysis: "As a whole, Europe is lagging behind in its ability to generate, organise, and sustain innovation processes that are increasingly expensive and organisationally complex" . Focusing on cures and prevention is a profit loss. Now if you asked Huckabee to back up the statement, he would (most likely) be stumped. I agree with you; it is another generalized statement that I am sure he probably doesn't know what he is talking about. It is probably born from ignorance. But hey, what can you expect from low-end politicians? Pretty evidently, I have had exposure at another side. Would like to hear your viewpoint; but it would seem that we agree on the original premise that Huckabee was speaking out of his a**.
Between all science fields , medicine is lagging behind ,Pharmaceutical companies reached a point where they promote a well known old formula as new drug to treat a certain illness or symptoms, take a doxpien for example, once was an anti histamine drug, now it's a silanor sleeping aid phase II. Though, I think a future president can help not just with funding but legall legislation those firms needed when thaey spend hundreds of million and years to come up with an approved product by the FDA, to find out many companies overseas jumping on the wagon knowing the only way to stop them is a very costly,lengthy legal process that's end up typically with settlement
I am not sure what your point is, and what "Lagging behind means". You need to clarify your stance a bit. U.S. is gaining market share against Europe in this industry. Period. The biotech industry is BOOMING. When talking about pharmas, you should include biotech as well. The company I worked for forecasted a doubling in revenue in 5 years because of the increased demand for equipment. Yes, the FDA and regulations are a roadblock, but some version of it is necessary, obviously. We can't be releasing dangerous drugs. How much FDA regulations still needs to be worked on though.
I think your point goes more towards the off label uses of drugs. There really are some insane things that certain drugs get prescribed for. I had a friend that was prescribed Cymbalta for back pain. Completely ****ing nuts by the doctor and they didn't fully explain to him what Cymbalta was. I told my friend he should go punch the doctor in the mouth.
