Discussion of Concerns for Trump Presidency

[5-Points 3,529]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, people coming here from third world shittholes by the millions has nothing to do with the increase in diseases. Same diseases that just so happen to be higher in their countries of origin.  

Exactly.

We had these diseases basically eradicated here in America. Then Obama/Biden/Harris opened the flood gates and let a bunch of disease ridden, illiterate, criminal, freeloaders (and a few hard working individuals) into the country. And people scratch their heads trying to figure out why we've had a resurgence of certain diseases. 

 

[TimHauck 2,873]

High fructose corn syrup lol.  That’s way down the list of concerns with our food.  Sugar is sugar 

[seafoam1 3,023]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

High fructose corn syrup lol.  That’s way down the list of concerns with our food.  Sugar is sugar 

Wow. What a massive concern our food is. It's amazing I'm alive and really healthy. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

4 hours ago, The Phantom's Phantom said:

Whether you believe RFK is gonna get rid of vaccines or not, the damage he has done and will do is already evident.

Questioning vaccine safety is dangerous to the public.  We saw more people due from covid that needed to die to anti-vax movements.

We're seeing other disease like whooping cough and measles making huge runs recently due to parents not vaccinating their kids.  Let's not forget a few years ago RFK blamed the measles vaccine on the Samoa measles outbreak.

When you sow distrust you cause problems.

So even though smart responsible people like you and I might still have access to vaccines there are still idiots out there like tardcore that will refuse to vaccinate themselves and their kids and we as Americans should protect the idiots.

I agree with all of this except that the damage was done long before Trump named RFK to his cabinet. I doubt that appointment is going to make things significantly worse. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

22 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Exactly.

We had these diseases basically eradicated here in America. Then Obama/Biden/Harris opened the flood gates and let a bunch of disease ridden, illiterate, criminal, freeloaders (and a few hard working individuals) into the country. And people scratch their heads trying to figure out why we've had a resurgence of certain diseases. 

 

If we let these people in on an orderly basis, we could inoculate them the way we did at Ellis Island. If we offered them amnesty, we could inoculate them. 

We’ll never stop them from coming. Tighter border restrictions can slow them down, temporarily, but not stop them. And we’ll never deport more than a handful for show. So if our public health truly concerns you (and it should) I would think hard about amnesty and a path to citizenship. It’s the only way. 

[Strike 5,542]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If we let these people in on an orderly basis, we could inoculate them the way we did at Ellis Island. If we offered them amnesty, we could inoculate them. 

We’ll never stop them from coming. Tighter border restrictions can slow them down, temporarily, but not stop them. And we’ll never deport more than a handful for show. So if our public health truly concerns you (and it should) I would think hard about amnesty and a path to citizenship. It’s the only way. 

Of course we can stop them from coming.  It's idiotic to suggest we can build a spaceship that can go to Mars but we can't secure a focking geographic line in our own country.  As far as letting people in on an orderly basis, we already have that.  It's called "legal immigration." 

[seafoam1 3,023]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Of course we can stop them from coming.  It's idiotic to suggest we can build a spaceship that can go to Mars but we can't secure a focking geographic line in our own country.  As far as letting people in on an orderly basis, we already have that.  It's called "legal immigration." 

You are trying to be reasonable with a focking idiot. Wake up. 

[5-Points 3,529]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

If we let these people in on an orderly basis, we could inoculate them the way we did at Ellis Island. If we offered them amnesty, we could inoculate them. 

We’ll never stop them from coming. Tighter border restrictions can slow them down, temporarily, but not stop them. And we’ll never deport more than a handful for show. So if our public health truly concerns you (and it should) I would think hard about amnesty and a path to citizenship. It’s the only way. 

Militarize the border. Shoot anybody trying to cross illegally. Deport every illegal we encounter in the interior of the country. Jail and fine employers who hire iillegals. Disincentivise those who come here illegally and those who encourage them to do so for their own personal gain. It's the only way. 

 

ETA: Prosecute all NGO's and their employees providing aid, guidance and encouragement to these invaders, for treason and execute them. Might as well throw in all the politicians who support the program as well. 

[seafoam1 3,023]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

Militarize the border. Shoot anybody trying to cross illegally. Jail and fine employers who hire iillegals. Disincentivies those who come here illegally and those who encourage them to do so for their own personal gain. It's the only way. 

 

 

Fock yes. I am 1000% for this. 

[TimHauck 2,873]

1 hour ago, seafoam1 said:

Wow. What a massive concern our food is. It's amazing I'm alive and really healthy. 

So you don’t think RFK needs to “make America healthy again”?

[seafoam1 3,023]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So you don’t think RFK needs to “make America healthy again”?

He needs to try to keep the poor people from making poor decisions and eating shlt and raising up health care prices. I'm all for letting them die. But that isn't going to happen so let's take the choice of bad food living from you liberal poor aholes.  

All you dumbass poor shltheads eating grease as a diet. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

23 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Militarize the border. Shoot anybody trying to cross illegally. Deport every illegal we encounter in the interior of the country. Jail and fine employers who hire iillegals. Disincentivise those who come here illegally and those who encourage them to do so for their own personal gain. It's the only way. 

 

 

Good luck with this. But even if you somehow accomplished it all you still wouldn’t stop it. You might want to study the 60 year history of the war on drugs. 

[seafoam1 3,023]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Good luck with this. But even if you somehow accomplished it all you still wouldn’t stop it. You might want to study the 60 year history of the war on drugs. 

It would be nice to see your broke ass thrown in jail. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

3 hours ago, MDC said:

Research has been done on this for decades. A former heroin addict with no medical credentials isn’t going to bring something new to the table. 

It’s part of MAGA’s whole anti-expert thing. Don’t need them damn elitists telling us how it is! Get the guy that eats road kill in there, he knows a thing or two about common sense

[seafoam1 3,023]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

It’s part of MAGA’s whole anti-expert thing. Don’t need them damn elitists telling us how it is! Get the guy that eats road kill in there, he knows a thing or two about common sense

WTF are you rambling on about now? 

[5-Points 3,529]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Good luck with this. But even if you somehow accomplished it all you still wouldn’t stop it. You might want to study the 60 year history of the war on drugs. 

You act as if we ever wanted to win the "war on drugs." Itsatip: we didn't. 

I'm all for managed legal immigration. I'm also all for maximum punishment and deterrence for illegal immigration. 

We can do both, simultaneously. 

[Death 302]

19 hours ago, jbycho said:

You are wrong. Completely wrong. 

Dang. If your kid is autistic you really need to seek help on where you should be getting your information from. Because everything you are saying is wrong. 

Good luck dude. Although it's too late for that. Time to focus on the now. And be smarter moving forward. 

Oh, do share a slice of your infinite wisdom that you have zero experience in dealing with and cull your "information" from dumbass, conspiracy-loving podcasts, or whatever you use to fuel you raging and pathetic ignorance.

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

16 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

You act as if we ever wanted to win the "war on drugs." Itsatip: we didn't. 

I'm all for managed legal immigration. I'm also all for maximum punishment and deterrence for illegal immigration. 

We can do both, simultaneously. 

I don’t think we can. 
 

But- your side won the election. Essentially Trump was elected for two reasons: to control the border and undocumented immigration, and to lower prices. Let’s see if he can do these two things. 

[5-Points 3,529]

23 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think we can. 
 

But- your side won the election. Essentially Trump was elected for two reasons: to control the border and undocumented immigration, and to lower prices. Let’s see if he can do these two things. 

It can absolutely be done, you just don't want us to. 

Trump can and will clamp down on illegal border crossings. His track record is proof of that. 

Lowering prices is going to be difficult in the short term. This country really needs consecutive Republican administrations to combat the damage that the Obama/Biden/Harris cabal has wreaked on this country and the middle class specifically. It could take decades to recover but a second Trump term is a good place to start. 

[jerryskids 6,797]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

High fructose corn syrup lol.  That’s way down the list of concerns with our food.  Sugar is sugar 

Tell us you know nothing about nutrition, without telling us you know nothing about nutrition.   

[TimHauck 2,873]

21 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Tell us you know nothing about nutrition, without telling us you know nothing about nutrition.   

Good article here, but please feel free to share why you feel differently:

https://www.cooperinstitute.org/blog/is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-really-any-worse-than-any-other-simple-sugar

[jerryskids 6,797]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Good article here, but please feel free to share why you feel differently:

https://www.cooperinstitute.org/blog/is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-really-any-worse-than-any-other-simple-sugar

A blog post?  Simply google "why is HFCS bad?"  Each of the points below has links if you are interested.  

 

Quote

 

AI Overview

Learn more

 

 

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is considered bad for health primarily because excessive consumption of its main component, fructose, can lead to negative metabolic effects like increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides, liver problems, and potential contribution to insulin resistance, largely due to its unique way of being metabolized by the body compared to other sugars. 

 

Key reasons why HFCS is considered bad:

• Insulin resistance:

  While fructose doesn't directly affect insulin levels, its metabolism can contribute to insulin resistance, a key factor in type 2 diabetes. 

   

• Increased triglyceride levels:

  High fructose intake can significantly raise triglyceride levels in the blood, further contributing to cardiovascular risks. 

   

• Inflammation:

  Studies suggest that excessive fructose consumption can promote inflammation in the body, linked to various chronic diseases. 

• Fructose metabolism:

  Unlike glucose, fructose doesn't trigger the same satiety signals in the body, potentially leading to overeating and increased calorie intake. 

   
• Liver fat accumulation:

  When consumed in excess, fructose is rapidly converted to fat in the liver, increasing the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. 

   

 

•  

[TimHauck 2,873]

Just now, jerryskids said:

A blog post?  Simply google "why is HFCS bad?"  Each of the points below has links if you are interested.  

 

•  

Too much of any added sugar is bad.  Thanks for agreeing!

[jerryskids 6,797]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Too much of any added sugar is bad.  Thanks for agreeing!

Ignorance is bliss.  Keep giving your kids HFCS, it's the same.   

[TimHauck 2,873]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Ignorance is bliss.  Keep giving your kids HFCS, it's the same.   

Are you saying Coca-cola isn’t bad for you if it has cane sugar instead of HFCS?

[jerryskids 6,797]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Are you saying Coca-cola isn’t bad for you if it has cane sugar instead of HFCS?

It's less bad for you, for god's sake read the bullet points about inflammation, lack of satiety signals, and metabolism in the liver.  

For a thread that is supposed to be serious discussion, you don't seem to have even read what I posted.  Carry on.

[The Phantom's Phantom 254]

I love when Jerry claims to be smart and instead of having a discussion he just posts Google results

And then acts smug like he wrote them.

[jbycho 754]

2 hours ago, Death said:

Oh, do share a slice of your infinite wisdom that you have zero experience in dealing with and cull your "information" from dumbass, conspiracy-loving podcasts, or whatever you use to fuel you raging and pathetic ignorance.

Sorry you have damaged sperm. I only gave you good advice is all. Don't blame me for your failures. 

[TimHauck 2,873]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's less bad for you, for god's sake read the bullet points about inflammation, lack of satiety signals, and metabolism in the liver.  

For a thread that is supposed to be serious discussion, you don't seem to have even read what I posted.  Carry on.

Can you link the studies referenced?  The “blog post” I linked (from a PhD) acknowledges that studies have associated HFCS with obesity.  But my understanding is that the studies did not compare HFCS consumption to cane sugar consumption.

[jerryskids 6,797]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Can you link the studies referenced?  The “blog post” I linked (from a PhD) acknowledges that studies have associated HFCS with obesity.  But my understanding is that the studies did not compare HFCS consumption to cane sugar consumption.

You can't google "why is HFCS bad"?  I'd have to click through and copy/paste all the links.

[TimHauck 2,873]

Just now, jerryskids said:

You can't google "why is HFCS bad"?  I'd have to click through and copy/paste all the links.

You’re moving the goalposts.  I agree it’s bad.   I don’t agree that it’s really any worse than cane sugar.

[The Phantom's Phantom 254]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You can't google "why is HFCS bad"?  I'd have to click through and copy/paste all the links.

If you're going to try and argue your point, use your words like an adult.

[jerryskids 6,797]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You’re moving the goalposts.  I agree it’s bad.   I don’t agree that it’s really any worse than cane sugar.

I'm not moving them.  All of those bullet points are specific to HFCS.  

Do you want to set up a Zoom call for me to show you how to do the google search?

[jerryskids 6,797]

Just now, The Phantom's Phantom said:

If you're going to try and argue your point, use your words like an adult.

I provided him an AI interview which references multiple links.  I suggested he do the same 4-word search and click through to the links he wants on specific bullet points.  That seems easier than me trying to reconstruct all of the links in an AI search result, computer expert guy.

[The Phantom's Phantom 254]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I'm not moving them.  All of those bullet points are specific to HFCS.  

Do you want to set up a Zoom call for me to show you how to do the google search?

We all know how to do a google search and we can all agree that hfcs is bad for you.  You stated that it's worse than sugar.  Do you have anything to back up your assertion?

[The Phantom's Phantom 254]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I provided him an AI interview which references multiple links.  I suggested he do the same 4-word search and click through to the links he wants on specific bullet points.  That seems easier than me trying to reconstruct all of the links in an AI search result, computer expert guy.

You can simply tell him why hfcs is worse than sugar, but I'm assuming you can't because you don't know and you were just sh1t talking, Mr engineer.

[jerryskids 6,797]

1 minute ago, The Phantom's Phantom said:

We all know how to do a google search and we can all agree that hfcs is bad for you.  You stated that it's worse than sugar.  Do you have anything to back up your assertion?

 

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm not moving them.  All of those bullet points are specific to HFCS.  

Do you want to set up a Zoom call for me to show you how to do the google search?

One example:  HFCS is metabolized in the liver, glucose isn't.

Is your google broken too?

So much for serious discussion

[The Phantom's Phantom 254]

Here is another article written by a dietitian explaining why there isn't much difference between the two.

The main difference is that fructose is only metabolized by the liver and an excess amount can stress the liver.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar

[The Phantom's Phantom 254]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

One example:  HFCS is metabolized in the liver, glucose isn't.

Is your google broken too?

So much for serious discussion

Oh good, see you're finally using your words.

And now why is that a problem?

[jerryskids 6,797]

Here, from Healthline, with links:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad#2-Increases-your-risk-of-fatty-liver-disease