Donald Trump and US politics

"

faerwin wrote:

Another example is the use of detailed nutriments in food products. If such label wasn't required by law, the clients would be unaware of what's in their food and as a consequence, there would be extremely unhealthy ingredients (often chemicals) still being used to either enhance taste or cut down production cost, just like it was a few decades ago.


Such regulations are a good thing to have.

We should have ingredients labels on everything then! How many calories are in a CPU anyways?

While there is some truth to the concept of keeping food manufacturers honest, it doesn't always make the food safer. A perfect example is people complaining about all the sugar added to foods - so the companies switched to high fructose corn syrup. Then people complained about that, so now they promote "real sugar" as an ingredient.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

How's all that #winning going, America? Sick of it yet?

I hope not, because getting sick over there is about to get even more expensive. LOL.

That's not funny. People will die because of that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

A large portion of the health costs are insurance companies in the middle. What Trump has advocated for is letting the ones that can charge less for the job to compete across state lines with those that are inefficient or just plain extra greedy. This will bring down the costs. It won't solve the entire problem, but it will be a good start.

We've been through this before with the break up of AT&T. If that hadn't been done, we might not have a public internet, and the 'progressives' would claim that Ma Bell had our best interests at heart, and any break up of the system would just hurt the poorest people.

"

faerwin wrote:

Now, if Charan would simply have laughed at people that voted for Trump because they kind allowed this to happen, that would be different. But he's laughing at the collateral damage.

The "LOL" was clearly directed at the idea/slogan of Winning.

Hence the "Sick of it yet?" and then the commentary about getting sick costing more.

If Trump's plan does not work out in the long term and does end up costing people more, or give them substantially less coverage, then Charan's criticism of Trump's plan will be validated.

I am of the mindset that it will work out to be cheaper and give people better coverage, by the methodology of forcing insurance companies away from the government trough, and making them and much of the health care profession re-examine what they need to change to make things work and stay within a budget.

A good example was the MRSA crisis that was sweeping hospitals and costing far too much in terms of costs and detrimental health. Costs and illnesses both went down because they learned how to handle the disease in a much better fashion.

A big part of the solution down the road is going to be encouraging and somehow facilitating healthier lifestyles. How? That's a multi-trillion dollar question. We could conceivably eliminate 1/3 to 1/2 of the total health care costs if we can find a way that people want to follow without telling them how to live their lives. Incentives, education, and somehow moving entertainment from passive activities to physically engaging?

President Trump may not have ballroom manners, but he isn't going to leave Americans high and dry without healthcare.

Obamacare didn't work. All Trump did was force congress into having to vote on a new healthcare bill, sooner rather than later.

Everybody who paid into the system, paid more for healthcare than they did prior to Obamacare. All the profits went up to big pharma, and the insurance companies. All Trump did was cut out the subsidies.

People trying to paint this as some sorta disaster, end of the world scenario, are hysterical.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-britain-clinton/hillary-clinton-warns-britain-on-potential-trade-deal-with-trump-idUSKBN1CK0IB?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=59e36b1004d30108a323ed4e&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook


When you're so salty about losing the elections that you try to sabotage the economy and trade deals of your own country.

"

diablofdb wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-britain-clinton/hillary-clinton-warns-britain-on-potential-trade-deal-with-trump-idUSKBN1CK0IB?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=59e36b1004d30108a323ed4e&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook


When you're so salty about losing the elections that you try to sabotage the economy and trade deals of your own country.

Trump can not be trusted, most people in Europe know that.

Just like I said the salt is real.


xD the liberals right now:

Salt and Sanctuary is actually a pretty cool game. I get to play as a liberal snowflake who's salty and seeks sanctuary in safe spaces at colleges. There is some randomness involved, like I don't have a clue whether we're getting therapy animals that day, or coloring books, or just a simple box of tissues passed around with some hot cocoa. You never know which NPC ends up fainting in the middle of class, just so they can make themselves feel better by being the center of attention. You get exp and level ups by being as compassionate as you can possibly be to your fellow safe space attendees. The incorrect responses can trigger people, and get you the SPOC (shady person of color) label. And that's how you lose the game. Occasionally a random NPC SPOC shows up, and that's the only time you're allowed to berate another member, and you also have the vote to kick option.

I remember having the entire class in the palm of my hand when I brought up how a White cisgender male walked by me and gave me a strange look. I got pats on the back and reassurance from the class when I told them how much willpower it took me to keep from fainting on the spot. Great game, and it really helped me get in touch with my sensitive side.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/

When I first looked at this, I was surprised, a small majority of people worldwide would say they "dislike American ideas about democracy".

But then I realized that a two party system is only a little better than a one party system. Also the direct vote of the president has lead to someone unqualified as a leader.

It is not a good system. Proportional representation is much better. Governments usually consist of different coalitions (Germany saw conservative/liberal, social democratic/liberal, Social democratic/green, now conservative/social democratic and probably in a few weeks or months conservative/liberal/green) and compromise is necessary.