Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
I'm not convinced that anything short of the U.S. threatening military action against Israel (which was never going to happen) would have deterred Israel from doing exactly what it did. This isn't the 1950s. At the time of the October 7 attack, Israel had more than enough military firepower on hand to devastate Gaza.
You might well think that's what the U.S. should have done. But I think that's what would have been required.
no if the USA just threatened to withhold weapons then it would have stopped. again, they are fully reliant on US weapons and aid.
I think you underestimate the insane amount of bombing that they just did.
I answered, the civil right act in the titles which limited private freedom to discriminate, did so because of the commerce clause not because of the 14a.
ofc where they guaranteed voting rights and other provisions in the same act, that was to enforce the 14a
no if the USA just threatened to withhold weapons then it would have stopped. again, they are fully reliant on US weapons and aid.
I think you underestimate the insane amount of bombing that they just did.
I think you underestimate the willingness of other countries to sell to them if the USA don't
If Trump was truly responsible for the ceasefire he'd just wait a few days and actually get credit for it instead of "footing all the legwork" under Bidens tenure and leaving questions
Being against universalism isn't fascism.
Fascism is denying rights to your own people.
Foreigners in other countries have no rights to begin with, even according to the american federal constitution.
Is the american federal constitution that doesn't recognize any right to people outside of the USA, fascist?
Stop
You are for torture ….
That what we were talking about .
And torture has not in place in western value !
Absolutely none.
WAIT A SEC, so BIDEN FDA now bans Red n. 3 food additive
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...
It's apparently cancerogenic.
The data showing it is are many years old (which is why most other countries had already banned it).
So it's either RFK (and others) were actually right all along and "the party of science" lied to the public and allowed a toxic substance with 0 nutritional or flavor value (so with no reasonable use case) to be used in food, OR they are lying now .
Either case, absolute certain proof the "party of science", the "experts", are bad faith people who don't represent actual science in the slightest, lie to us constantly, should never have any power over our lives, and should be prosecuted for the immense damage they did to society all these years.
Yes i mean bureaucrats and the democrats and republicans who supported them
WAIT A SEC, so BIDEN FDA now bans Red n. 3 food additive
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...
It's apparently cancerogenic.
The data showing it is are many years old (which is why most other countries had already banned it).
So it's either RFK (and others) were actually right all along and "the party of science" lied to the public and allowed a toxic substance with 0 nutritional or flavor value (so with no reasonable use case) to
Why you care?
I thought you said nothing should ever be banned and consumer would adjust by itself.
Why you care?
I thought you said nothing should ever be banned and consumer would adjust by itself.
I would prefer for the FDA not to exist at all yes, but IF it has to exist, then it should work according reasonable principles of paternalism, not outright corruption.
Tell me where to sign for the abolition of the FDA and a constitutional amendment forbidding the federal government to ever regulate the production, sale and consumption of anything for human consumption in any form and i will sign that.
But i live in the real world where government is tasked to regulate according to paternalistic principles, defining paternalism as in "we know better than you do and we won't allow you to make mistakes that we think are too big".
In that world agencies, regulators, freedom limitations have to make sense within paternalistic principles. That's already bad enough, as it creates huge regulatory and enforcement costs and a lot of hidden negatives, but when the principles are appropriate AT LEAST people are going to make fewer mistakes.
If you remove even that and instead of paternalism you have outright corruption, made up "science" used to push political narratives or to help political friends, that's a lot worse than a "wise paternalist agency", obviously. Not that every time you give power to an agency, it will always be used against the people to further the interests of those with power. That i know. But there are degrees of violence, degrees of corruption, and the FDA is worst than most other agencies at that.
Maybe because much more money than usual is involved, maybe because it's easier to "fake the science" with regards to the effects on the body of new substances, and torture data to make it claim whatever the bureaucrats and their friends want it to claim, whatever the reason the FDA has been beyond the point of no return since at least their absurd, insane, war on vaping (which Trump conducted as well, he is fully responsible for those horrific choices during his administration to be clear).
So that's why i care about it. It's not only a white/black flag with me preferring no regulation, and them putting in regulation. Once we are in the game where some regulation might exist, i care very much that at least it is sensible regulation based on actual real data with specific paternalistic objectives that are pursued transparently.
WAIT A SEC, so BIDEN FDA now bans Red n. 3 food additive
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...
It's apparently cancerogenic.
The data showing it is are many years old (which is why most other countries had already banned it).
So it's either RFK (and others) were actually right all along and "the party of science" lied to the public and allowed a toxic substance with 0 nutritional or flavor value (so with no reasonable use case) to
The word is carcinogenic, not cancerogenic.
Also, are you honestly arguing that any time a U.S. administration bans a substance that was banned earlier in, say, the EU, it proves that the administration (or to go even further out on the ledge, the administration's entire party) is anti-science. Does that sound like good logic to you? I'm being serious. Does that argument work in your brain?
Finally, as weeez pointed out, it's a little discordant for you to be cheerleading for RFK. You are the guy who thinks that we should still be spraying DDT all over the place, that people should be able to practice medicine without any sort of license or training, etc.
Also, are you honestly arguing that any time a U.S. administration bans a substance that was banned earlier in, say, the EU, it proves that the administration (or to go even further out on the ledge, the administration's entire party) is anti-science. Does that sound like good logic to you? I'm being serious. Does that argument work in your brain?
Finally, as weeez pointed out, it's a little discordant for you to be cheerleading for RFK. You are the guy who thinks that we should still be spr
I am not a cheerleader for RFK, i said he was right about this specific topic. If even a dangerous charlatan like him is better than the FDA, the FDA has a big problem.
I am saying that anytime 2 different agencies in 2 first world countries made very difference choices based on the same internationally available data, then AT LEAST one of them is utterly wrong in a way that shouldn't be possible. Yes the same applied to covid of course.
IF there is "the science", the conclusion should be the identical same ones in every first world country that.. applies science. IF they aren't , then there is not enough science then no choice should be made in ANY of those countries, that changes the status quo.
So the FDA wasn't necessarily wrong in NOT banning that substance. But then it should keep NOT banning it forever until further, completly different data comes. Nothing new came in to make them ban it now. The literature is the same and has been the same for 10 + years. It's impossible not to claim that they either did a disastrous mistake before, not banning it, or now, banning it.
As for DDT, being allowed to practice medicine without formal pieces of paper and so on, that's about tradeoff (which i always prefer on the side of freedom). They have huge benefits, and some costs. They have use cases.
For a toxic substance with no dietary effects nor taste effects, ie with no legitimate case use, it's different, the threshold changes. Especially when it's in food consumed by minors, i am not against protecting minors when feasible, absolute freedom to do what you want with your body is about adults in my model, i have always been very clear about that.
I am not a cheerleader for RFK, i said he was right about this specific topic. If even a dangerous charlatan like him is better than the FDA, the FDA has a big problem.
I am saying that anytime 2 different agencies in 2 first world countries made very difference choices based on the same internationally available data, then AT LEAST one of them is utterly wrong in a way that shouldn't be possible. Yes the same applied to covid of course.
IF there is "the science", the conclusion should be the iden
Is this really how you think science works?
Also, as you've made clear, if you were Il Duce II, you would allow a great many things in Italy that are banned elsewhere in the world. Would that difference in policy imply a disagreement between Italy and those other countries about the science.
Is this really how you think science works? Also, are countries allowed to have different risk tolerances?
If that's the explicit reason for the different regulation yes. If carcinogenity above X is illegal in country A, and above Y is illegal in country B, and both countries assess the same carcinogenity then one bans and the other doesn't, that can be fair.
But that's not what happened, the FDA dismissed any and all claim about carcinogenity until now, with no changes in literature.
Science "does it's things", but then if there isn't overwhelming consensus among first world scientists about something, no action can (should) be taken based on such (lack of) "science", as absent an overwhelming consensus, there is no "science" to base anything upon.
Also, as you've made clear, if you were Il Duce II, you would allow a great many things in Italy that are banned elsewhere in the world. Would that difference in policy imply a disagreement between Italy and those other countries about the science.
No, about paternalism being a legitimate form of use of government power or not.
If the FDA had said "yes, red n 3 can cause cancer, we still aren't banning it", everything would be fine. That's not what happened though
I am not a cheerleader for RFK, i said he was right about this specific topic. If even a dangerous charlatan like him is better than the FDA, the FDA has a big problem.
I am saying that anytime 2 different agencies in 2 first world countries made very difference choices based on the same internationally available data, then AT LEAST one of them is utterly wrong in a way that shouldn't be possible. Yes the same applied to covid of course.
IF there is "the science", the conclusion should be the iden
Red dye is like an urban legend. Like 40 years ago it was the common theory why red M&M's went away. Now on the way out the guy wants to suddenly make a strong stance on Congressional insider trading and do something about red dye.
I live in a "third" world country where I've never bothered getting a driver's license because I can just slip the cop $10 for the rare times I'm pulled over. Beats wasting my day at the DMV imo and I'm still not convinced this govt is more corrupt than the US. A little hyperbolic but not that far off.
He's gonna make Greenland 51st state
For every potential red state annexation they should also have to annex a blue state.
Canada will be the 51st state, Greenland will be a territory like Guam and PR if it goes there.
I am saying that anytime 2 different agencies in 2 first world countries made very difference choices based on the same internationally available data, then AT LEAST one of them is utterly wrong in a way that shouldn't be possible. Yes the same applied to covid of course.
And a good example is the covid vaccine manufacturers wanted to keep their test data secret for 75 years. For what?
And the reason why the carnivore diet has literally changed people's lives is because it takes everything out of the diet that's harmful to the body. Even vegetables have toxins that were designed to protect the plant from it's environment but aren't good for our bodies, even though people eat them every day (like red#3) and they're included in the "Food pyramid [scheme]"..
There are still dozens of ingredients banned from other countries but they're still allowed in the United States.
