|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
One of the greatest advantages of being an internet lefty is that, given the political tilt of most online spaces, they can conveniently quarantine kooks temporarily when needed for an argument. It'd be fascinating to see how they fared if they didnt have the ability to say "no I don't see anyone like that" and have most of their discussion partners always back them up about it.
"Did you see what X random Republican said? This proves they are all morally reprehensible human beings."
"Did you see what this online lefty said something insane?"
"No, I dont think that's representative, I didn’t see that much chatter about it. You are only nitpicking random people online"
*Everyone nods along and decides to stop talking about it.*
But the crazy people are still there, it's why when a healthcare CEO is murdered in cold blood so many dem politicians have to put out mealy mouthed statements about how "murder is bad, but.. "
On August 11 2025 12:59 Gescom wrote:
^ Are you responding to something or are you just parachuting in some neat anecdote with zero context?
It keeps happening recently. And a flavor of it right now
|
^ Are you responding to something or are you just parachuting in some neat anecdote with zero context?
Edit: I still can't figure it out, so say what you wanna say instead of being cryptic.
|
Northern Ireland27205 Posts
On August 11 2025 12:53 Introvert wrote:One of the greatest advantages of being an internet lefty is that, given the political tilt of most online spaces, they can conveniently quarantine kooks temporarily when needed for an argument. It'd be fascinating to see how they fared if they didnt have the ability to say "no I don't see anyone like that" and have most of their discussion partners always back them up about it. "Did you see what X random Republican said? This proves they are all morally reprehensible human beings." "Did you see what this online lefty said something insane?" "No, I dont think that's representative, I didn’t see that much chatter about it. You are only nitpicking random people online" *Everyone nods along and decides to stop talking about it.* But the crazy people are still there, it's why when a healthcare CEO is murdered in cold blood so many dem politicians have to put out mealy mouthed statements about how "murder is bad, but.. " Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 12:59 Gescom wrote:
^ Are you responding to something or are you just parachuting in some neat anecdote with zero context? It keeps happening recently. And a flavor of it right now
I mean Intro this is all a bit messy in combination and is conflating different things.
You have a point on cherry picking the crazies, however, if those crazies are like actual legislators then, yeah that’s a bit different in terms of actual influence and power.
RFK isn’t some random cunt on Twitter with 9 followers who gets reposted to lefty group, he’s in the executive cabinet. MTW isn’t some mom ranting on Facebook, she’s in the legislature.
People who are demanding that their zhir/sheer pronouns are respected are not. They’re absolutely on the utter fringes, even for lefties.
People being OK with a healthcare CEO being shot? Plenty on the left, indeed, plenty (but less) on the right were fine with it as well incidentally.
One may absolutely find the latter disturbing, but it actually is a commonly held view.
Some of the shite that gets posted in absolutely isn’t, and can absolutely be dismissed as being absolutely fringe.
Indeed I’d argue that a perception that some of the fringe degrees are relatively mainstream actively galvanises some of the worst impulses of the right.
If you genuinely believe you’re gonna be locked up for accidentally misgendering someone, or are gonna be bossed around at work by a bunch of people with yioir/zhir pronouns then you’re going to gravitate towards things that assuage those fears.
There’s a reason some of these fringe issues are gigantically amplified, and it’s not for the greater good
|
On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers."
I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax.
|
On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax.
My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks.
For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers."
|
On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers."
Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory.
Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard.
|
On August 11 2025 15:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers." Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory. Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard.
I think you are wrong on that. I think you are conflating two different things. There existed a loophole where companies could advertise their food as "0g trans fat" as long as there was less than 0.5g per serving, which was deceptive for people trying to avoid trans fat. As far as I know the FDA does not still allow artificial trans fats up to 0.5g per serving but I'm all ears if you can provide a source on that.
I should also mention that the FDA regulates that serving sizes on foods should be typically representative of what a person could eat. So you also couldn't fill a food with trans fat and make a small serving size so that it comes out to <0.5g per serving.
|
Here, a Trump admin action that I think is good: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/10/nvidia-amd-china-chip-sale-revenues
I don't know why they needed to phrase it that way instead of calling it a 15% corporate tax over foreign revenue, but increasing corporate taxes for multinationals is something that is long overdue. I don't necessarily think that tying it to export licenses is the best approach, but I don't mind it. It's a bit of a kludge, but it gets the job done. Including a corporate tax increase in the "big beautiful bill" would've been a lot better as it would have applied to all relevant companies rather than just these 2 chip makers, but it's still a positive.
|
On August 11 2025 15:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 15:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers." Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory. Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard. I think you are wrong on that. I think you are conflating two different things. There existed a loophole where companies could advertise their food as "0g trans fat" as long as there was less than 0.5g per serving, which was deceptive for people trying to avoid trans fat. As far as I know the FDA does not still allow artificial trans fats up to 0.5g per serving but I'm all ears if you can provide a source on that.
That's not really a loophole, that's just how rounding works...
|
It's still deceptive and in turn a marketing angle.
|
On August 11 2025 15:39 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 15:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 15:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers." Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory. Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard. I think you are wrong on that. I think you are conflating two different things. There existed a loophole where companies could advertise their food as "0g trans fat" as long as there was less than 0.5g per serving, which was deceptive for people trying to avoid trans fat. As far as I know the FDA does not still allow artificial trans fats up to 0.5g per serving but I'm all ears if you can provide a source on that. That's not really a loophole, that's just how rounding works...
No, because fats are rounded to the nearest 0.5g. Except if it's less than 0.5g it gets rounded down to 0g. How rounding works would be to round 0.4g to 0.5g, not to 0g.
The same loophole applies in calories. They round to the nearest 5 calories. Unless it's less than 5 then they always round to 0. So they round 4 calories down to 0 which is why cooking sprays can advertise "zero calories" even though they are just fat in a can. Above 50 calories they round to the nearest 10 calories.
|
On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers."
MAHA is not strictly conservative thankfully but RFK is not any conservative basically, he's a rabid environmentalist and leftist like the celebrities who started the vaccine/autism craze 20 some years ago like you said. Everything's natural man. The reason the antivax platform jumped some is I think 1) religious liberty and 2) general healthcare revolt in the wake of Obamacare - whether "death panels" or vaccine schedules and 3) actually Trump himself essentially Tea Partifying the issue when he "ran" in 2011-2012.
Otherwise Kamala and the DNC alienating a Kennedy is one of the stupidest things they've done.
On August 11 2025 15:39 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 15:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 15:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers." Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory. Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard. I think you are wrong on that. I think you are conflating two different things. There existed a loophole where companies could advertise their food as "0g trans fat" as long as there was less than 0.5g per serving, which was deceptive for people trying to avoid trans fat. As far as I know the FDA does not still allow artificial trans fats up to 0.5g per serving but I'm all ears if you can provide a source on that. That's not really a loophole, that's just how rounding works...
Give someone with a peanut allergy a rounded 0g of peanuts...
|
On August 11 2025 15:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 15:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers." Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory. Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard. I think you are wrong on that. I think you are conflating two different things. There existed a loophole where companies could advertise their food as "0g trans fat" as long as there was less than 0.5g per serving, which was deceptive for people trying to avoid trans fat. As far as I know the FDA does not still allow artificial trans fats up to 0.5g per serving but I'm all ears if you can provide a source on that. I should also mention that the FDA regulates that serving sizes on foods should be typically representative of what a person could eat. So you also couldn't fill a food with trans fat and make a small serving size so that it comes out to <0.5g per serving.
Yup, it appears I was wrong. The 0.5g/serving is the rule for how much trans fat can be in food, but there is also a ruling that outright bans adding trans fats to food. So unless the trans fats are there naturally (e.g. in beef tallow), the 0.5g/serving is irrelevant.
As for the way the FDA regulates serving sizes... have you EVER eaten a "serving" of anything? It's a joke.
|
On August 11 2025 15:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 15:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 15:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 11 2025 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 14:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 11 2025 12:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2025 08:59 WombaT wrote:On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote:
Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." I think WombaT is justified with his response and confusion. Your post attempted to "both sides" the anti-vaxxer position, which isn't a fair representation of Democrat sentiment vs. Republican sentiment in regards to vaccinations. Specifically focusing on two celebrities and but-the-Kennedys-are-liberal isn't sufficient. You're also trying to thread a very tenuous needle when you agree that "modern day anti-vax is overwhelmingly right-wing", yet try to reject the essentially synonymous phrasing that this is part of "modern day conservatism" by suggesting "this is not a strictly conservative thing". I don't think precisely quantifying it as 100-to-0 vs. 90-to-10 vs. 80-to-20 is really all that imperative, because I don't think that WombaT was suggesting that absolutely every single Republican is anti-vax and absolutely zero Democrats are anti-vax. My post is not both sidesing anti-vaxx. My post is pointing out that RFK/MAHA is not strictly conservative. To make that point I listed things like Kennedy being an environmentalist and lifelong Democrat, and some people on the left also opposing things like GMO foods, artificial pesticides, and yes, vaccines. There are people on the left that like some elements of MAHA. Constantly scoffing and ostracizing with "ugh, conservatives..." is how the left keeps alienating people from their own camp and how the right keeps recruiting them into their ranks. For whatever reason WombaT decided to laser focus on only the first sentence of that post that mentions vaccines, ignore the rest of it, and present it as me making an argument that the left "are the real anti-vaxxers." Well, you are arguing for the sake of it. It seems entirely irrelevant what "the left" thinks if you don't think that fringe lunatics like anti-vaxxers would be put in charge of the DHS by "the left". Whereas we have clear and obvious evidence that "the right" did exactly that. The fact that not all of RFK's ideas are bad doesn't detract from the fact that most of them are. The rest fall in the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory. Would RFK have banned trans fats if he has been in power 20 years ago? Doubt it. He's not banning trans fats now, and the FDA ban from 2015 is only partial. The EU's rules are both stricter and clearer: 2% of all fat vs 0.5g/serving without clear rules on what actually is a serving. The latter means you can still absolutely put all the trans fats you like in your margarine, as long as you lower the serving size. Instead, RFK is ranting about seed oils, which don't necessarily have any trans fats at all and are considerably better for you than animal fats like butter or lard. I think you are wrong on that. I think you are conflating two different things. There existed a loophole where companies could advertise their food as "0g trans fat" as long as there was less than 0.5g per serving, which was deceptive for people trying to avoid trans fat. As far as I know the FDA does not still allow artificial trans fats up to 0.5g per serving but I'm all ears if you can provide a source on that. I should also mention that the FDA regulates that serving sizes on foods should be typically representative of what a person could eat. So you also couldn't fill a food with trans fat and make a small serving size so that it comes out to <0.5g per serving. Yup, it appears I was wrong. The 0.5g/serving is the rule for how much trans fat can be in food, but there is also a ruling that outright bans adding trans fats to food. So unless the trans fats are there naturally (e.g. in beef tallow), the 0.5g/serving is irrelevant. As for the way the FDA regulates serving sizes... have you EVER eaten a "serving" of anything? It's a joke.
fair point
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The joke that is obesity. People don't exercise enough for the vast amounts of trash they shovel in their mouths. Actually almost no amount of exercise can negate that amount of shovelling.
In all fairness, I also believe the serving rec is a joke, but it's very difficult to justify chronic caloric excess, despite all the superstimuli that we have stuffed in our food.
|
EDIT:
I'm going to delete this, it's not really adding anything to the topic. I'm just hyper-focusing on something unimportant.
|
RFK is not left-wing. Maybe he used to be. He's not left-wing today. Is he right-wing? Yes. He supports an abortion ban after three months. That's right-wing.
He has <50% left-wing views, and he clearly has >50% right-wing views. He's more right-wing than left-wing. No, RFK is not a left-winger. Sorry to break it to ya'll.
|
The right wing position is definitely not to permit abortions for up to 3 months.
|
On August 11 2025 17:19 BlackJack wrote:
The right wing position is definitely not to permit abortions for up to 3 months.
The extreme right-wing position is a complete ban on abortion. What do you think is the reason why Trump's administration and the Supreme Court are considered fascist and not just a vanilla flavored right-wing authority?
|
On August 11 2025 17:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2025 17:19 BlackJack wrote:
The right wing position is definitely not to permit abortions for up to 3 months. The extreme right-wing position is a complete ban on abortion. What do you think is the reason why Trump's administration and the Supreme Court are considered fascist and not just a vanilla flavored right-wing authority?
The reason is the latter doesn't sell NYT subs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
