US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4976

On September 13 2016 12:38 xDaunt wrote:

The alt right speech came after Trump hired Bannon because Hillary and her campaign erroneously thought that they could make some hay.

On September 13 2016 13:18 Nyxisto wrote:
while we're on the topic of the alt-right and popculture

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

this is ... something

s the presidential campaign continues into uncharted territory of vitriol and hyperbole, one Oregon man has made a visual statement extreme for even this election season by hanging an effigy of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton from a crane along Interstate 5, according to media reports.

The candidate's likeness — clad in a black wetsuit, women's clothing and a blonde wig — dangles from a tall crane outside of the town of Sutherlin and is surrounded by toilets filled with signs representing the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Alongside the effigy were signs reading "VOTE TRUMP," "URANIUM ONE" and "TREASON? ASK HER," according to a report from KVAL.

On September 13 2016 13:15 xDaunt wrote:
The regressive left is a bigger problem than the alt right if for no other reason than the regressive left is in a dominant position in society. It owns the universities, pop culture, and most of the media, and it uses its position to quash all countervailing positions. By comparison, the alt right is a blip on the radar that didn't even begin to enter the fringes of the national consciousness until this election cycle. Speaking of which, how many of you know what Andrew Breitbart's mission was when he founded his news organization?

On September 13 2016 13:18 Nyxisto wrote:
while we're on the topic of the alt-right and popculture

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

this is ... something

On September 13 2016 13:15 xDaunt wrote:
the regressive left is in a dominant position in society. It owns the universities, pop culture, and most of the media, and it uses its position to quash all countervailing positions.

Influential research that downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease in the 1960s was paid for by the sugar industry, according to a report released on Monday.

With backing from a sugar lobby, scientists promoted dietary fat as the cause of coronary heart disease instead of sugar, according to a historical document review published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Though the review is nearly 50 years old, it also showcases a decades-long battle by the sugar industry to counter the product’s negative health effects.

The findings come from documents recently found by a researcher at the University of San Francisco, which show that scientists at the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), known today as the Sugar Association, paid scientists to do a 1967 literature review that overlooked the role of sugar in heart disease.

SRF set an objective for the review, funded it and reviewed drafts before it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which did not require conflict of interest disclosure until 1984. The three Harvard scientists who wrote the review made what would be $50,000 in today’s dollars from the review.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition, food studies and public health professor at New York University, said the food industry continues to influence nutrition science, in an editorial published alongside the JAMA report.

“Today, it is almost impossible to keep up with the range of food companies sponsoring research – from makers of the most highly processed foods, drinks, and supplements to producers of dairy foods, meats, fruits, and nuts – typically yielding results favorable to the sponsor’s interests,” Nestle said. “Food company sponsorship, whether or not intentionally manipulative, undermines public trust in nutrition science, contributes to public confusion about what to eat, and compromises Dietary Guidelines in ways that are not in the best interest of public health.”

The cushy relationship between food companies and researcher has been captured in recent investigations by the Associated Press and New York Times. The AP revealed in June that candy trade groups were funding research into sweets. And in 2015, the New York Times showed how Coca-Cola has funded millions in research to downplay the link between sugary beverages and obesity.

The Sugar Association said in a statement that SRF “should have exercised greater transparency” in its research, but also accused the study authors of having an “anti-sugar narrative”.

On September 13 2016 13:44 oBlade wrote:
We're still conducting research into whether you can flip someone's vote by saying "roll the dice" enough times.

On September 13 2016 13:18 Nyxisto wrote:
while we're on the topic of the alt-right and popculture

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

this is ... something

On September 13 2016 13:15 xDaunt wrote:
The regressive left is a bigger problem than the alt right if for no other reason than the regressive left is in a dominant position in society. It owns the universities, pop culture, and most of the media...

...and it uses its position to quash all countervailing positions.

On September 13 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
I'd have to say that the "regressive left" is a much bigger problem in Europe than it is in the US right now; the US's left is stupid and short-sighted but the existence and influence of a more right-wing conservative party (which is, to be fair, deeply flawed) keeps it in check.