Soda Pop Wars: MAGA vs MAHA

[jerryskids 6,549]

1 minute ago, Drizzay said:

But Aspartame and Sucralose do the same exact thing to your body as sugar and hfcs.

They do?  Link?

[Gepetto 1,285]

1 hour ago, Drizzay said:

But Aspartame and Sucralose do the same exact thing to your body as sugar and hfcs.

I disagree. I did the Atkins (low-carb) diet and lost 30 pounds all while drinking lots of Coke Zero, Mt Dew Zero, Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi, and Diet Dr Pepper and my blood tests show I'm not even close to being diabetic. And even before I did low-carbs and after I stopped, I drink a lot of this type of pop and I'm still healthy.

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

16 hours ago, Fnord said:

Mmm, not really. But you have your beliefs and nobody can ever take that away from you l'il guy!

Just like you King of Irony.

[Fnord 2,051]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Just like you King of Irony.

HA! If you're being truthful you know damn well jonmx is the undisputed King of Irony in these parts.

Many of my beliefs are fungible and will change based on new information coming to light. Whereas you said yourself you don't care about "an article." You "have beliefs." These statements imply that your beliefs will not change regardless of information presented to you. If that isn't the case, then perhaps you should be more careful with your words.

[Sean Mooney 1,935]

55 minutes ago, Fnord said:

HA! If you're being truthful you know damn well jonmx is the undisputed King of Irony in these parts.

Many of my beliefs are fungible and will change based on new information coming to light. Whereas you said yourself you don't care about "an article." You "have beliefs." These statements imply that your beliefs will not change regardless of information presented to you. If that isn't the case, then perhaps you should be more careful with your words.

And the article wasn't even really about what he said- I don't think Tbay read the article before his first comment. I'm not sure he has read it still by this point. 

[edjr 6,578]

 

[jbycho 580]

Two career babysitters chatting over a bottle of white zinfandel at one of their play date get togethers.

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

HA! If you're being truthful you know damn well jonmx is the undisputed King of Irony in these parts.

Many of my beliefs are fungible and will change based on new information coming to light. Whereas you said yourself you don't care about "an article." You "have beliefs." These statements imply that your beliefs will not change regardless of information presented to you. If that isn't the case, then perhaps you should be more careful with your words.

 

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

And the article wasn't even really about what he said- I don't think Tbay read the article before his first comment. I'm not sure he has read it still by this point. 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

4 hours ago, Fnord said:

HA! If you're being truthful you know damn well jonmx is the undisputed King of Irony in these parts.

Many of my beliefs are fungible and will change based on new information coming to light. Whereas you said yourself you don't care about "an article." You "have beliefs." These statements imply that your beliefs will not change regardless of information presented to you. If that isn't the case, then perhaps you should be more careful with your words.

That's right, it's because I'm smarter than you.  You should just shut up, sit down, and learn from what I type.

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

3 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

And the article wasn't even really about what he said- I don't think Tbay read the article before his first comment. I'm not sure he has read it still by this point. 

Correct, I don't care what the article says.  Here's what I know is fact.  Soda (diet or non, just like other extra sugary drinks), like alcohol and tobacco, are not good for you.  Here's another fact that I know... unhealthy eating/drinking, leads to higher rates of unhealthy bodies.  Here's another fact that I know... people who are getting income from the government about 80% of them getting healthcare from the government.  Did the article dispute or contradict any of those facts?  Willing to bet it's "no".  So, knowing all of those facts, it's common sense to me that like alcohol and tobacco products, drinks like soda (even diet), just like other artificially sweetened drinks, should should be restricted from any government assistance purchasing outlets.  Why?  Because tax payers are helping them survive AND supporting their health.  Why should we be supporting them to be unhealthy and then pay for them to get (more expensive), medical help?

Also, I've heard from other people many times over that people on SNAP are not just buying Coke or Pepsi, but a lot are buying DIET Coke or DIET Pepsi, which isn't as bad.  Well, a punch in the face isn't as bad as broken leg, but they both hurt.  Same applies here.  Artificial sweeteners and alike, that are found in diet sodas are linked to other health conditions such as high blood pressure, liver disease, and kidney disease.  All of those require extra medical costs.

If these people want to drink soda, let them... they just have to use their own money.  These people are free to live and make any unhealthy choices they want... we as a country don't have to give them the money do it.

 

That's my stance.  I don't care what ANY politician says.  I don't care what any influencer says.  I'm willing to bet that they article (from an accused right-leaning outlet), has to say on the matter when I know for a fact, that they won't dispute or disprove any fact I said earlier.

[Sean Mooney 1,935]

15 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Correct, I don't care what the article says.  Here's what I know is fact.  Soda (diet or non, just like other extra sugary drinks), like alcohol and tobacco, are not good for you.  Here's another fact that I know... unhealthy eating/drinking, leads to higher rates of unhealthy bodies.  Here's another fact that I know... people who are getting income from the government about 80% of them getting healthcare from the government.  Did the article dispute or contradict any of those facts?  Willing to bet it's "no".  So, knowing all of those facts, it's common sense to me that like alcohol and tobacco products, drinks like soda (even diet), just like other artificially sweetened drinks, should should be restricted from any government assistance purchasing outlets.  Why?  Because tax payers are helping them survive AND supporting their health.  Why should we be supporting them to be unhealthy and then pay for them to get (more expensive), medical help?

Also, I've heard from other people many times over that people on SNAP are not just buying Coke or Pepsi, but a lot are buying DIET Coke or DIET Pepsi, which isn't as bad.  Well, a punch in the face isn't as bad as broken leg, but they both hurt.  Same applies here.  Artificial sweeteners and alike, that are found in diet sodas are linked to other health conditions such as high blood pressure, liver disease, and kidney disease.  All of those require extra medical costs.

If these people want to drink soda, let them... they just have to use their own money.  These people are free to live and make any unhealthy choices they want... we as a country don't have to give them the money do it.

 

That's my stance.  I don't care what ANY politician says.  I don't care what any influencer says.  I'm willing to bet that they article (from an accused right-leaning outlet), has to say on the matter when I know for a fact, that they won't dispute or disprove any fact I said earlier.

You are writing a ton of words that just miss the point of the article. 

[listen2me 23 1,825]

On 3/25/2025 at 10:53 AM, jerryskids said:

Interesting, thanks for posting.  I can see both sides, but in the end I'm on RFK's side on this.  There is nothing redeeming health-wise about sugary soft drinks (diet sodas are a different topic; I presume RFK distrusts them tho).  I don't think it's "government overreach" to tell people what they can or cannot use our tax dollars on.

Agreed.  That simple to me.  Government gives them money (working people's tax dollars)....not sure how its overreach to tell them there are a few things that they cannot spend with it.  

 

On 3/25/2025 at 12:14 PM, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't really care but I also believe that, as Americans, we are free to do what we want.

Like get a job

[listen2me 23 1,825]

On 3/25/2025 at 1:36 PM, Fnord said:

Ah, the MAGA ethos in a nice little nutshell. Well done.

Guy comes in and immediately makes it totally political.  Lol.  The hacks here are growing.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

20 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You are writing a ton of words that just miss the point of the article. 

The article is talking about SNAP and soda, right?  That's what I wrote on.

[Fnord 2,051]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's right, it's because I'm smarter than you.  You should just shut up, sit down, and learn from what I type.

LOL. Maybe, maybe not. But if you are smarter than me, it sure AF doesn't come across in what you type.

 

30 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Guy comes in and immediately makes it totally political.  Lol.  The hacks here are growing.  

It's a political thread, FFS.

Remember when Michelle Obama wanted to make kids eat healthier in schools and many on the right collectively lost their shlt? I do. Tell me how this is different, and then justify the reactions. Preferably without gross generalizations.

[Hawkeye21 2,380]

55 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Agreed.  That simple to me.  Government gives them money (working people's tax dollars)....not sure how its overreach to tell them there are a few things that they cannot spend with it.  

 

Like get a job

Absolutely.  They should get a job.  There are plenty to be had.

[Sean Mooney 1,935]

16 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The article is talking about SNAP and soda, right?  That's what I wrote on.

It is using that as a backdrop to talk more about influencers getting involved in political policy 

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

It is using that as a backdrop to talk more about influencers getting involved in political policy 

So.... yes then.

How are "influencers" any different than "lobbyists"?

[Sean Mooney 1,935]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So.... yes then.

How are "influencers" any different than "lobbyists"?

 

Lobbyists are more upfront about what they are doing. Influencers are made to look more neutral in what they are doing. Basically it is a matter of explicitly stating a goal versus implicitly acting on one. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Lobbyists are more upfront about what they are doing. Influencers are made to look more neutral in what they are doing. Basically it is a matter of explicitly stating a goal versus implicitly acting on one. 

Influencers are made to look more neutral?  Where?  When?  They're bought and paid for... just like lobbyists.

[Sean Mooney 1,935]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Influencers are made to look more neutral?  Where?  When?  They're bought and paid for... just like lobbyists.

JFC- you are being obtuse at this point. How long do you plan to be that way?

Yes influencers are designed to look more neutral because you are following them because they match with what you want to follow from a political (or lifestyle, etc) standpoint. But there are now pay-to-post schemes making their way into politics (the same way they've operated in other walks of life) and playing off the perception of neutrality people believe they have. In this case those pay to post companies are involving themselves in an issue that has/had potential to fracture some of the alliance between the two groups mentioned. Transparency is what this boils down to which the article mentions. If you'd have read the article instead of just commenting you'd know that. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

JFC- you are being obtuse at this point. How long do you plan to be that way?

Yes influencers are designed to look more neutral because you are following them because they match with what you want to follow from a political (or lifestyle, etc) standpoint. But there are now pay-to-post schemes making their way into politics (the same way they've operated in other walks of life) and playing off the perception of neutrality people believe they have. In this case those pay to post companies are involving themselves in an issue that has/had potential to fracture some of the alliance between the two groups mentioned. Transparency is what this boils down to which the article mentions. If you'd have read the article instead of just commenting you'd know that. 

It's not me being obtuse, it's you being slow.  I don't think anyone other than slow people, who ever thought influencers were neutral.  Influencers go where the money is.  If you thought otherwise, that's your fault.

[Sean Mooney 1,935]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

It's not me being obtuse, it's you being slow.  I don't think anyone other than slow people, who ever thought influencers were neutral.  Influencers go where the money is.  If you thought otherwise, that's your fault.

What words that I said do you not know the meaning of? I can help you out because clearly you are missing something in the posts I've written. 

[Fnord 2,051]

3 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

What words that I said do you not know the meaning of? I can help you out because clearly you are missing something in the posts I've written. 

Well obviously that's a you problem. I have it on good TBay's authority that TBay is the smartest guy here. 

[seafoam1 2,797]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Well obviously that's a you problem. I have it on good TBay's authority that TBay is the smartest guy here. 

He has a better shot at it than you do. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,910]

20 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's right, it's because I'm smarter than you.  You should just shut up, sit down, and learn from what I type.

True dat

[Hardcore troubadour 14,910]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Influencers are made to look more neutral?  Where?  When?  They're bought and paid for... just like lobbyists.

Mooney.  What a delusional clown. Ian Miles Chong, one of the guys that took the soda money, is meant to look neutral? Mooney just makes it up. 

[TimHauck 2,598]

On 3/25/2025 at 10:08 AM, Sean Mooney said:

Interesting story here that looks at how people are manipulating discourse online through the battle over soda.

There is a push from some circles to try and get soda labeled as ineligible from the SNAP system. Then a firm stepped in behind the shadows (allegedly-ish) and started paying MAGA influencers to make posts talking about this being government overreach, post pictures of Trump drinking Diet Coke, and paying people up to 1,000 dollars per pro-soda post. It just strikes me as interesting to this story but also to the idea that this speaks to a much larger issue where corporations and politicians are finding new ways to rile up people through less than noble means. 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/03/25/soda_pop_wars_inside_pay-to-post_campaign_to_pit_maga_against_maha__152551.html

Good to see Riley Gaines draws the line somewhere.  Recently she was shilling ivermectin with a promo code and suggesting it cures cancer.

On 3/25/2025 at 4:00 PM, jerryskids said:

Needs based entitlements like Medicaid dwarf any reductions you could get at the DOD, and CBFs drinking crap soda directly influences the cost of that program.

Oh and Jerry, before you accuse me of only piling on conservatives, I do agree with this.  I’m on board with making unhealthy items not eligible for SNAP benefits.  There are probably items that aren’t currently eligible that should be though.

Also don’t think it’s been discussed here but part of this conversation I saw was people talking about the % of SNAP dollars that go to Pepsi or Coca-Cola the companies, not just the soft drink.  But they own other brands too so that could be misleading.

On 3/25/2025 at 11:10 PM, Gepetto said:

I disagree. I did the Atkins (low-carb) diet and lost 30 pounds all while drinking lots of Coke Zero, Mt Dew Zero, Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi, and Diet Dr Pepper and my blood tests show I'm not even close to being diabetic. And even before I did low-carbs and after I stopped, I drink a lot of this type of pop and I'm still healthy.

Yeah, deciding what’s “unhealthy” could be tricky.  I could probably be convinced to allow Diet Soda but not regular.  There have actually been studies showing that diet soda really isn’t that bad for you, or maybe not bad at all.  Decent summary here:

 

[TimHauck 2,598]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Influencers are made to look more neutral?  Where?  When?  They're bought and paid for... just like lobbyists.

Paging @Horseman to call Tbay gay for using the word “influencer”

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

23 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

True dat

Nah, I was just being an azz.  His schtick has gotten old for me.  He's only a step down from rusty and gutterboy... not a big one though.

[TBayXXXVII 2,480]

LOL, Fnord thinks that if someone is smarter than him, they're smarter than everyone else on the board.  Meaning, he thinks he's the smartest one.

[Drizzay 698]

 

[Fnord 2,051]

3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, Fnord thinks that if someone is smarter than him, they're smarter than everyone else on the board.  Meaning, he thinks he's the smartest one.

Nah, I was just being an ass. Your shtick has gotten old for me.  You're only a step down from jonmx and Maxipad overflow... not a big one though.

[Maximum Overkill 1,738]

Soda should be banned through Snap, EBT or whatever else you want to call it. It's one of the worst things on the planet that you can put in your body. 

 

[TimHauck 2,598]

6 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Soda should be banned through Snap, EBT or whatever else you want to call it. It's one of the worst things on the planet that you can put in your body. 

 

Non-diet soda

[Maximum Overkill 1,738]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Non-diet soda

Diet soda is actually worse for you. 

[TimHauck 2,598]

2 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Diet soda is actually worse for you. 

Link?

[Maximum Overkill 1,738]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Link?

How many you want?

While seemingly a healthier alternative to regular soda, excessive consumption of diet soda, particularly those containing artificial sweeteners, can pose potential health risks, including disrupting gut health, increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes, and potentially impacting kidney function. 

 

• Diabetes Risk:

  Research indicates that frequent consumption of diet soda, particularly those containing artificial sweeteners, may be linked to an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. 

   

• Kidney Health:

  Some studies suggest that excessive consumption of diet soda, whether regular or diet, may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease and kidney stones. 

   

• Weight Gain:

  Despite being low in calories, some studies suggest that diet soda may actually trigger cravings for sugary and high-calorie foods, potentially leading to weight gain. 

   

• Metabolic Health:

  Artificial sweeteners in diet soda may negatively impact insulin function and blood sugar control, potentially contributing to metabolic issues. 

   

• Neurological Issues:

  Some research suggests a link between the consumption of artificial sweeteners and an increased risk of neurological problems like stroke and dementia. 

   

• Gut Health:

  Some studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may negatively affect the gut microbiome, the community of beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract, which plays a crucial role in overall health. 

   

Other Considerations:

Caffeine:

Diet sodas often contain caffeine, which can act as a diuretic and potentially irritate the bladder. 

Sodium:

Diet sodas can contain high levels of sodium, which can contribute to high blood pressure. 

Nutritional Value:

Diet sodas offer little to no nutritional value, and excessive consumption may lead to missing out on essential nutrients from other sources. 

 

 

 

[TimHauck 2,598]

1 hour ago, Maximum Overkill said:

How many you want?

While seemingly a healthier alternative to regular soda, excessive consumption of diet soda, particularly those containing artificial sweeteners, can pose potential health risks, including disrupting gut health, increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes, and potentially impacting kidney function. 

 

• Diabetes Risk:

  Research indicates that frequent consumption of diet soda, particularly those containing artificial sweeteners, may be linked to an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. 

   

• Kidney Health:

  Some studies suggest that excessive consumption of diet soda, whether regular or diet, may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease and kidney stones. 

   

• Weight Gain:

  Despite being low in calories, some studies suggest that diet soda may actually trigger cravings for sugary and high-calorie foods, potentially leading to weight gain. 

   

• Metabolic Health:

  Artificial sweeteners in diet soda may negatively impact insulin function and blood sugar control, potentially contributing to metabolic issues. 

   

• Neurological Issues:

  Some research suggests a link between the consumption of artificial sweeteners and an increased risk of neurological problems like stroke and dementia. 

   

• Gut Health:

  Some studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may negatively affect the gut microbiome, the community of beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract, which plays a crucial role in overall health. 

   

Other Considerations:

Caffeine:

Diet sodas often contain caffeine, which can act as a diuretic and potentially irritate the bladder. 

Sodium:

Diet sodas can contain high levels of sodium, which can contribute to high blood pressure. 

Nutritional Value:

Diet sodas offer little to no nutritional value, and excessive consumption may lead to missing out on essential nutrients from other sources. 

 

 

 

I don’t see any comparisons of diet vs regular soda here.  This reminds me of @jerryskids prior claims about HFCS

[Engorgeous George 2,121]

On 3/25/2025 at 1:44 PM, Fnord said:

Mmm, not really. But you have your beliefs and nobody can ever take that away from you l'il guy!

I believe the currently accepted term for this is Dimensionally 2 strandard devations to the left of center on a Bell curve.  Its a bit cumbersome at first but eventually it just rolls off the tongue.

[TimHauck 2,598]

On 3/27/2025 at 8:40 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

Influencers are made to look more neutral?  Where?  When?  They're bought and paid for... just like lobbyists.

 

On 3/27/2025 at 8:54 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

It's not me being obtuse, it's you being slow.  I don't think anyone other than slow people, who ever thought influencers were neutral.  Influencers go where the money is.  If you thought otherwise, that's your fault.

 

On 1/2/2025 at 8:10 PM, Horseman said:

You can act like a grown asss man or not. Your choice.  You say influencer one more time you'll be referred to as she/her from then on