Discussion of Concerns for Trump Presidency

[Fnord 2,264]

On 5/21/2025 at 7:42 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Schroeders cat. 

Pray tell, what did Schoeder's cat do? Sit beside the toy piano purring while Schroeder pounded out Beethoven? Was Sally jealous of the cat?

Or was he a Redskins fan in the 80s? Raiders fan in the 90s?

You're a fockin clown that makes me laugh.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,424]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Pray tell, what did Schoeder's cat do? Sit beside the toy piano purring while Schroeder pounded out Beethoven? Was Sally jealous of the cat?

Or was he a Redskins fan in the 80s? Raiders fan in the 90s?

You're a fockin clown that makes me laugh.

Eh, auto complete wouldn’t accept the correct spelling so I didn’t bother.  You know who I’m talking about. But hey, it’s a big deal for you to think you bot one. Enjoy. Vote for Tim Walz again and then tell everyone how much you despise what he stands for.

[Fnord 2,264]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Eh, auto complete wouldn’t accept the correct spelling so I didn’t bother.  You know who I’m talking about. But hey, it’s a big deal for you to think you bot one. Enjoy. Vote for Tim Walz again and then tell everyone how much you despise what he stands for.

Sure, boss, sure. I did know what you were talking about, but using that reference in this context alone is kinda ridiculous, with the idiocy compounded by your errr.. your phone's inability to spell.

Are you aware that you don't need autocomplete if you spell it out correctly in the first place, Mr. Big Deal Around Here? I bot one!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,424]

26 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Sure, boss, sure. I did know what you were talking about, but using that reference in this context alone is kinda ridiculous, with the idiocy compounded by your errr.. your phone's inability to spell.

Are you aware that you don't need autocomplete if you spell it out correctly in the first place, Mr. Big Deal Around Here? I bot one!

It’s auto complete for a reason. It completes the word for you. Nice work. Congrats. 

[Fnord 2,264]

The White House Gutted Science Funding. Now It Wants to ‘Correct’ Research.

Quote

Who could argue with setting a “gold standard” for science?

Actually, thousands of scientists from around the country.

President Trump has ordered what he called a restoration of a “gold standard science” across federal agencies and national laboratories.

But the May 23 executive order puts his political appointees in charge of vetting scientific research and gives them the authority to “correct scientific information,” control the way it is communicated to the public and the power to “discipline” anyone who violates the way the administration views science.

It has prompted an open letter, signed by more than 6,000 scientists, academics, physicians, researchers and others, saying the order would destroy scientific independence. Agency heads have 30 days to comply with the order.

Since Mr. Trump returned to the presidency in January, his executive actions have not expressed robust support for science, nor even an understanding of how scientists work.

Among other things, the administration has eviscerated National Science Foundation research funding and fired staff scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service, which is responsible for forecasting weather hazards. A government report on child health cited research papers that did not exist.

“The erosion of American scientific capacity isn’t theoretical, it’s underway,” Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, wrote Monday in his newsletter. In an email later in the day, he called the executive order “a general tool for dismissing all inconvenient science.”

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy spokeswoman, Victoria LaCivita, said by email that the executive order was designed to rebuild “a crisis of trust between the scientific community and the American public.”

During Mr. Trump’s first term, his administration repeatedly undermined or disregarded scientific research, especially with respect to climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency tried to restrict the data that could be used to set environmental policy. The new executive order would expand that kind of control across the federal agencies and the national laboratories.

The open letter invoked a troubled past of manipulating science. “History illustrates, in no uncertain terms, the dangers of state-dictated ‘scientific truths,’” it says. “State-sponsored programs in Nazi Germany based on the ‘science’ of eugenics led to the genocide of millions of Jews, people with disabilities, and people identifying as L.G.B.T.Q.+ who were deemed to have ‘life unworthy of life.’”

Co-opting Familiar Words

The executive order echoes many of the principles of scientists who seek to make research papers more rigorous and transparent. For instance, lifting from what is known as the “open science” movement, the order says research should be reproducible, meaning that an experiment carried out in one lab can be repeated in another lab to see if it delivers similar conclusions.

The order says research should be subject to “unbiased peer review” and that there should be no conflicts of interest. That’s standard practice for scientific journals already: Authors are required to state whether they have any conflicts of interest and their findings are peer reviewed before publication.

The letter of protest says the executive order is “co-opting the language of open science to implement a system under which direct presidential appointees are given broad latitude to designate many common and important scientific activities as scientific misconduct.”

“As scientists, we are committed to a discipline that is decentralized and self-scrutinizing,” the letter reads. “Instead this administration mandates a centralized system serving the political beliefs of the President and the whims of those in power.”

According to a survey carried out last fall by the Pew Research Center, the American people trust scientists far more than the federal government.

The consequences

One line in the executive order draws particular attention to climate change studies that sometimes include what could happen if the most extreme (and highly unlikely) temperature increase scenario comes to pass. Known as the Representative Concentration Pathway scenario 8.5, or RCP8.5, the order described it correctly as a “a worst-case scenario based on highly unlikely assumptions.”

But there are good reasons to evaluate worst-case scenarios, even if they are unlikely, scientists point out. The worry is that administration officials would wholesale reject the findings of any studies that include any worst-case-scenario projections.

Meteorologists and climate researchers ran a livestream for more than four days to protest the administration’s cuts to weather and climate research, warning that people’s lives were at risk.

The order also criticizes provisions that encourage government agencies to take diversity, equity and inclusion considerations into account in their studies. That, too, could affect funding for a range of research proposals that include D.E.I. objectives.

Medical journals have received threatening letters from the Justice Department, suggesting without citing evidence that they published biased work.

Now comes the executive order on science.

“What’s being demanded here is an unwinding of scientific integrity policies, under the misleading name of “Gold Standard Science,” to serve the values and priorities of the current administration,” the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy organization that has been critical of Trump’s health and environmental policies, said in a blog post.

I'm sure this is fine.

[jbycho 754]

44 minutes ago, Fnord said:

The White House Gutted Science Funding. Now It Wants to ‘Correct’ Research.

I'm sure this is fine.

Who cares what you think? Seriously. 

[Fnord 2,264]

1 hour ago, jbycho said:

Who cares what you think? Seriously. 

I don't know, and don't care. I will engage with people that bring even a modicum of intelligence or humor, even if I don't agree with them. Many return that engagement. You offer neither humor or insight. In fact, you offer nothing either here or IRL. I know this because you have time to spam the hell out of this place with two different handles at all times of day.

I would pity you if you weren't such a consummate pr1ck to literally everyone.

[jbycho 754]

Just now, Fnord said:

I don't know, and don't care. I will engage with people that bring even a modicum of intelligence or humor, even if I don't agree with them. Many return that engagement. You offer neither humor or insight. In fact, you offer nothing either here or IRL. I know this because you have time to spam the hell out of this place with two different handles at all times of day.

I would pity you if you weren't such a consummate pr1ck to literally everyone.

Nope. Just dumbass liberals like yourself. Literally. 

[Fnord 2,264]

1 hour ago, jbycho said:

Nope. Just dumbass liberals like yourself. Literally. 

@Engorgeous George isn't a dumbass or a liberal and you're a jagoff to him. GFY.

[jbycho 754]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

@Engorgeous George isn't a dumbass or a liberal and you're a jagoff to him. GFY.

Aww. Did I hurt your boyfriend's feelers? 

[Mike Honcho 5,270]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

I don't know, and don't care. I will engage with people that bring even a modicum of intelligence or humor, even if I don't agree with them. Many return that engagement. You offer neither humor or insight. In fact, you offer nothing either here or IRL. I know this because you have time to spam the hell out of this place with two different handles at all times of day.

I would pity you if you weren't such a consummate pr1ck to literally everyone.

 

You've chosen to ignore content by jbycho. Options 

This is the way!

[Fnord 2,264]

10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

You've chosen to ignore content by jbycho. Options 

This is the way!

It is known!

[jbycho 754]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

You've chosen to ignore content by jbycho. Options 

This is the way!

It's funny how that never stops you libtards from replying. 

[TimHauck 2,868]

On 12/15/2024 at 12:19 PM, TimHauck said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 4:33 PM, jerryskids said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 4:55 PM, 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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:00 PM, jerryskids said:

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

 

•  

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:00 PM, TimHauck said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:02 PM, jerryskids said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:02 PM, TimHauck said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:04 PM, 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.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:17 PM, 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.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:22 PM, jerryskids said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:25 PM, 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.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:28 PM, 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?

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:30 PM, 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?

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:31 PM, jerryskids said:

 

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

Is your google broken too?

So much for serious discussion

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:31 PM, The Phantom's Phantom said:

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.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:33 PM, The Phantom's Phantom said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:35 PM, jerryskids said:

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

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:34 PM, The Phantom's Phantom said:

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

And now why is that a problem?

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:36 PM, jerryskids said:

I already posted those words in my initial response.  Another guy who doesn't read.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:37 PM, The Phantom's Phantom said:

I generally don't read Google results posted here correct, because we can all use Google. 

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:39 PM, jerryskids said:

Are you special?  This is the dumbest exchange I've had in a long time.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:41 PM, The Phantom's Phantom said:

Maybe don't run your mouth so much and you won't get called out on it.

Anytime you want to show any data or analysis or studies that show how hfcs is substantially worse than sugar go ahead and share.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:43 PM, jerryskids said:

Maybe google "Why is HFCS bad" like I said.

Also I gave a link upthread, which you won't read, because you are a troll and not a serious poster.

 

On 12/15/2024 at 5:58 PM, The Phantom's Phantom said:

Your assertion is that hfcs is substantially worse than sugar.

Maybe Google "why is hfcs worse than table sugar" and educate yourself.  Do you need a zoom meeting for me to show you how to do it?

Nevermind I'll do it for you.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/high-fructose-corn-syrup-or-table-sugar-for-better-health-avoid-too-much-of-either/

https://examine.com/articles/is-hfcs-worse-than-sugar/?srsltid=AfmBOopKOEEey2zOV7y4Jag0Xzu7wBwZW6k_XG5jktA5h5TJVIxiqf_K

https://www.popsci.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup-sugar/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sugar-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-for-your-health/

 

 

On 12/15/2024 at 6:19 PM, TimHauck said:

 

This link does not talk about HFCS vs cane sugar.  
 

To your first point, from the link @The Phantom's Phantom posted, which was also from Healthline:

 

the most commonly used type, HFCS 55, consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose and other sugars.

HFCS 55, primarily used in soft drinks, is similar to sucrose (regular table sugar), which is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS 42, which is used in processed foods, cereals, baked goods, and some beverages, contains 42% fructose (2Trusted Source)

…

In your digestive system, sugar is broken down into fructose and glucose — so corn syrup and sugar end up looking exactly the same.

Gram for gram, HFCS 55 has slightly higher levels of fructose than regular sugar. The difference is very small and not particularly relevant from a health perspective.

 

@jerryskids (or anyone), can you re-read this exchange and let me know who was “yip yapping” here?

I was trying to be polite, providing links, and you kept talking down to me and failed to show anything to prove your point in the actual argument we were having.

But Jerry, I’d like to revisit this debate if you don’t mind. Interestingly, you never responded after the last post of mine or @The Phantom's Phantom above, despite posting in this same thread later about other stuff.

I really have one question: can you share evidence that shows that HFCS is worse than sugar? (Read: not simply saying “HFCS is bad”).

Thanks in advance

[MDC 7,413]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@jerryskids (or anyone), can you re-read this exchange and let me know who was “yip yapping” here?

I was trying to be polite, providing links, and you kept talking down to me and failed to show anything to prove your point in the actual argument we were having.

But Jerry, I’d like to revisit this debate if you don’t mind. Interestingly, you never responded after the last post of mine or @The Phantom's Phantom above, despite posting in this same thread later about other stuff.

I really have one question: can you share evidence that shows that HFCS is worse than sugar? (Read: not simply saying “HFCS is bad”).

Thanks in advance

Jesus Christ man.  

[jbycho 754]

24 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

@jerryskids (or anyone), can you re-read this exchange and let me know who was “yip yapping” here?

I was trying to be polite, providing links, and you kept talking down to me and failed to show anything to prove your point in the actual argument we were having.

But Jerry, I’d like to revisit this debate if you don’t mind. Interestingly, you never responded after the last post of mine or @The Phantom's Phantom above, despite posting in this same thread later about other stuff.

I really have one question: can you share evidence that shows that HFCS is worse than sugar? (Read: not simply saying “HFCS is bad”).

Thanks in advance

 Off the rails, liberal style. 

[jerryskids 6,793]

42 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@jerryskids (or anyone), can you re-read this exchange and let me know who was “yip yapping” here?

I was trying to be polite, providing links, and you kept talking down to me and failed to show anything to prove your point in the actual argument we were having.

But Jerry, I’d like to revisit this debate if you don’t mind. Interestingly, you never responded after the last post of mine or @The Phantom's Phantom above, despite posting in this same thread later about other stuff.

I really have one question: can you share evidence that shows that HFCS is worse than sugar? (Read: not simply saying “HFCS is bad”).

Thanks in advance

Seek help.  Seriously.   

[TimHauck 2,868]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Seek help.  Seriously.   

Not even gonna acknowledge that you were over the line there?

I honestly don’t care about that though, I’d just like to see if you have any evidence of HFCS being worse than sugar.

[TimHauck 2,868]

Actually to @RLLD’s prior claim that I “always have my mind made up,” somewhat on this topic is an example of something that I’ve changed my mind on after doing more research: diet soda (albeit not thanks to GC posters).  I used to think diet soda was just as bad if not worse than regular soda, but now I realize that the data shows it is not nearly as bad as regular soda, and may even be able to considered not all that bad at all (in moderation). 

[TimHauck 2,868]

We’ve got @Frozenbeernuts saying 9/11 didn’t happen and that politicians were abusing kids in the basement of pizza shops, but I’m the one being told to seek help lol.  Gotta love the GC

[Frozenbeernuts 2,264]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

We’ve got @Frozenbeernuts saying 9/11 didn’t happen and that politicians were abusing kids in the basement of pizza shops, but I’m the one being told to seek help lol.  Gotta love the GC

I never said it didn't happen. It was an inside job with countries like Israel assisting. The hijackers had ties to the CIA. Just a major coincidence huh?

[TimHauck 2,868]

On 11/18/2024 at 8:00 PM, BrahmaBulls said:

Trump gets credit for the vaccine now?

Yes

[TimHauck 2,868]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:36 AM, BrahmaBulls said:

x is the media?

Elon Musk thinks so

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1934320054059122983

 

 

[BrahmaBulls 763]

You've chosen to ignore content by TimHauck.

[Fnord 2,264]

Add another example to the pile of alarming things that used to be an absolute red line for Republicans/Conservatives: the government dictating terms for- and maintaining decision-making authority in- a publicly traded corporation after completion of a merger.

‘Golden Share’ in U.S. Steel Gives Trump Extraordinary Control Administration officials secured a deal that will give the president unusual influence over a private company, and could serve as a model for other deals.

Highlights:

Quote

To save its takeover of U.S. Steel, Japan’s Nippon Steel agreed to an unusual arrangement, granting the White House a “golden share” that gives the government an extraordinary amount of influence over a U.S. company.

New details of the agreement show that the structure would give President Trump and his successors a permanent stake in U.S. Steel, significant sway over its board and veto power over a wide array of company actions, an arrangement that could change the nature of foreign investment in the United States.

Representatives from Nippon Steel — which had been trying to acquire the struggling U.S. Steel since December 2023, but had been blocked by the Biden administration over national security concerns — came around to Mr. Trump’s desire to take a stake that would give the U.S. government significant control over the company’s actions.

Nippon had argued that this influence should expire — perhaps after three or four years, the duration of the Trump administration. But in the meetings, which were held at the Commerce Department, Trump officials led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick insisted that the golden share should last in perpetuity, the two people said.

Under the terms of the national security pact, which the companies said they signed Friday, the U.S. government would retain a single share of preferred stock, called class G — as in gold. And U.S. Steel’s charter will list nearly a dozen activities the company cannot undertake without the approval of the American president or someone he designates in his stead.

Activities requiring the president’s permission include the company transferring production or jobs outside the United States, closing or idling plants before agreed-upon time frames and making certain changes to how it sources its raw materials.

While the companies have called their deal a “partnership,” U.S. Steel has not issued any security filings to indicate that it has significantly altered the terms of its $14.9 billion sale to Nippon, which shareholders approved 14 months ago.

In an update on Saturday to members of the United Steelworkers union, which had strongly opposed a sale to Nippon, its president, David McCall, expressed displeasure about the deal.

“We’re disappointed that President Trump reversed course, jeopardizing the future of American steel making by allowing the merger, now described as a ‘partnership,’ despite over a year of the president speaking forcefully against it,” he said.

The U.S. government has historically taken stakes in companies only when they were under financial duress or played a significant role in the economy. During the 2008-9 financial crisis, for example, it acquired a large stake in General Motors as part of a bailout and took control of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The U.S. Treasury sold the last of its stake in General Motors in 2013. President Trump has intermittently floated the idea of releasing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from government control.

It was not yet clear if the president might demand a golden share in other negotiations that have stalled over national security concerns, like those involving TikTok, the Chinese social media platform.

But the talks with the U.S. steel titan and its Japanese acquirer provide another example of Mr. Trump taking an expansive interpretation of his power as commander in chief.

Under the terms of the deal with the steel companies, the president could exert significant influence over U.S. Steel’s board. The president has the authority to directly appoint one of the board’s three independent directors, and approve or reject appointments for the other two, the two people familiar with the negotiations said.

The golden share in U.S. Steel cannot be transferred or sold by a future president, they said. They also described the share as “noneconomic,” meaning that it would not affect the size of other U.S. Steel shareholders’ stakes or give the U.S. government the chance to directly profit from U.S. Steel in the form of dividends.

For many national security experts, the concept of the golden share itself is perhaps more seismic than the terms of the actual security agreement.

Aaron Bartnick, an official in the Biden White House and Treasury Department who worked on national security reviews of foreign investments, said that taking equity in a company as a condition for such an approval was “pretty unprecedented.”

“It’s not at all clear to me how the equity stake — as opposed to just the associated governance rights — is necessary for safeguarding national security,” he added.

Mr. Lutnick, a former New York bond broker, has been particularly interested in injecting out-of-the-box thinking from the investment world into Washington. He has expressed interest in helping to establish a sovereign wealth fund, and has been a strong proponent of the golden share, a concept familiar to Wall Street investors who have dealings in countries like Britain, China and Brazil.

While such investment deals are typically led by the Treasury Department, it was Mr. Lutnick who led the negotiations with Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, partly because of his advocacy for the golden share idea. David E. Shapiro and Michael Grimes, senior officials at the Commerce Department who work on its newly created “investment accelerator,” also played key roles in the discussions last week, shortly after Mr. Lutnick had returned from trade talks with Chinese officials in London.

Mr. Trump had ordered a new national security review of Nippon’s deal with U.S. Steel soon after taking office. Government agencies offered Mr. Trump suggestions for ways to mitigate any national security concerns arising from Nippon’s acquisition, but Mr. Trump had rejected them. The concept of the golden share, however, appealed to Mr. Trump. About a week and a half ago, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Lutnick to finalize the arrangement.

While Mr. Lutnick agreed to some concessions, he also demanded that the president be able to veto the company’s actions in nearly a dozen areas, including decisions around relocating U.S. Steel’s headquarters or factories.

“We have a golden share, which I control, or the president controls,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Thursday. “Now I’m a little concerned whoever the president might be, but that gives you total control.”

Globally, golden shares have typically been reserved for companies that countries consider national champions: Brazil owns a stake in the plane maker Embraer; China has an indirect stake in TikTok’s parent, ByteDance; and the United Kingdom holds a golden share in the defense company BAE systems.

U.S. officials have historically taken issue with these structures, arguing instead for freer markets. European courts have struck down a number of golden shares on grounds that they limit the flow of capital.

Security experts said the adoption of a golden share in the United States could permanently alter the way that foreign investors view deal making in the country.

“A bigger issue is the messaging that it sends to the market, which is the U.S. government is intervening increasingly in transactions that don’t seem to have — by traditional standards — significant national security risks,” said Stephen Heifetz, a partner at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Time to wake up.